Dayton Brew. Co. v. Whitcomb
This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 316 (Dayton Brew. Co. v. Whitcomb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Dayton Breweries Company instituted an action against James Whitcomb in the Hamilton Common Pleas to recover seven months rent, claimed to be due on a buildingleased to him by the'Company.
The lower court instructed the jury to re-. turn a verdict for Whitcomb on the ground that the corporation had been dissolved and that the claim had not been assigned. Error was 'prosecuted to the Court of Appeals and it held:
1. Section 11964 GC. provides that no action pending in favor or against a corporation shall be discontinued or abate by its dissolution whether the dissolution occurs by expiration of its charter or otherwise.
2. After dissolution, by virtue of 11968 GC. a corporation may prosecute an action in the corporate name for the use of the party entitled to- receive the proceeds thereof, which would have accrued to the corporation but for the dissolution.
3. If a judgment is recovered, the proceeds therefrom, under this section may be placed in the hands of a receiver for distribution to-persons entitled thereto.
4. The lower court erred in instructing the verdict.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-brew-co-v-whitcomb-ohioctapp-1926.