Drott v. Bateman

20 Ohio C.C. 711
CourtOhio Circuit Courts
DecidedJanuary 15, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 Ohio C.C. 711 (Drott v. Bateman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Drott v. Bateman, 20 Ohio C.C. 711 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A firm name showing the surnames only of the partners, is not a fictitious name, nor a designation not showing the names of the partners within the meaning of the act of February 13, 1896, 92 O. L., 25, requiring every firm doing business under a fictitious name to file and publish a certificate showing the full names and residences of its members.

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

Related

Duris Enterprises v. Moore
458 N.E.2d 451 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ohio C.C. 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drott-v-bateman-ohiocirct-1899.