Duhme v. Mehner

Ohio Supreme Court

Duhme v. Mehner

65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 593

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 10, 1901·No. No. 6624·Published

Opinion

Judgment affirmed on the ground that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations, the' evidence showing that all the parties, including the minor son, knew of the alleged fraud in the settlement for more than four years before the suit was brought, and for more than four years after the minor son became of age; and furthermore the equities seem to be with the defendants.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Dávis, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment affirmed on the ground that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations, the' evidence showing that all the parties, including the minor son, knew of the alleged fraud in the settlement for more than four years before the suit was brought, and for more than four years after the minor son became of age; and furthermore the equities seem to be with the defendants.

Minshall, C. J., Burket and Dávis, JJ., concur.

Duhme v. Mehner, 65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 593 (Ohio 1901).

Pincite

65 Ohio St. (N.S.) 593 (Duhme v. Mehner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.