Costine, Admr. v. Kennon

Ohio Supreme Court

Costine, Admr. v. Kennon

156 N.E. 141, 115 Ohio St. 712, 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 712, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 75, 1926 Ohio LEXIS 283

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket19558

StatusPublished

This text of 156 N.E. 141 (Costine, Admr. v. Kennon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Costine, Admr. v. Kennon, 156 N.E. 141, 115 Ohio St. 712, 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 712, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 75, 1926 Ohio LEXIS 283 (Ohio 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason that there is evidence in the record tending to show that the claim sued upon by defendant in error was based upon a contract of employment entered into by the deceased, William Patterson, prior to his death; that said services have been performed; that upon the rejection of such claim by the representatives of the estate of said William Patterson, deceased, the defendant in error had a right to maintain this action under and by virtue of Sections 10722 and 10723, General Code. The record disclosing that the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant in error upon the issue thus tendered, and judgment rendered thereon, which judgment having been affirmed by the court of appeals, we find no prejudicial error which justifies reversal thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason that there is evidence in the record tending to show that the claim sued upon by defendant in error was based upon a contract of employment entered into by the deceased, William Patterson, prior to his death; that said services have been performed; that upon the rejection of such claim by the representatives of the estate of said William Patterson, deceased, the defendant in error had a right to maintain this action under and by virtue of Sections 10722 and 10723, General Code. The record disclosing that the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant in error upon the issue thus tendered, and judgment rendered thereon, which judgment having been affirmed by the court of appeals, we find no prejudicial error which justifies reversal thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.E. 141, 115 Ohio St. 712, 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 712, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 75, 1926 Ohio LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costine-admr-v-kennon-ohio-1926.