Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Ashland Sheet Mill Co.

Ohio Circuit Courts

Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Ashland Sheet Mill Co.

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 414

DecidedJanuary 25, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 414 (Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Ashland Sheet Mill Co.) 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

Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Ashland Sheet Mill Co., 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 414 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, J.

Where a motion to discharge an attachment is sustained, and the plaintiff, within thirty days thereafter, or sooner if so ordered by the court, ‘files a petition in error and an undertaking for the retention of the attached property, it is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of See. 5563b Eev. Stat.

An affidavit for attachment, which contains the statement that “the defendant is a nonresident of said state of Ohio,” when aided by the averment in the petition, which is sworn to positively, “that the defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of Kentucky,” is equivalent to a statement that the defendant is a foreign corporation.

An affidavit for attachment upon the ground that the defendant is a.foreign corporation must affirmatively show that such corporation is not within the exceptions contained in Subd. 1, Sec. 5521 Eev. Stat., and it is not aided by an averment in the petition, though sworn to positively, that the defendant is “doing business at Ashland, Kentucky,” as such statement does not exclude the fact that it may also be doing business in this state and owning or using a part of its capital or plant in this state.

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, J.

Where a motion to discharge an attachment is sustained, and the plaintiff, within thirty days thereafter, or sooner if so ordered by the court, ‘files a petition in error and an undertaking for the retention of the attached property, it is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of See. 5563b Eev. Stat.

An affidavit for attachment, which contains the statement that “the defendant is a nonresident of said state of Ohio,” when aided by the averment in the petition, which is sworn to positively, “that the defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of Kentucky,” is equivalent to a statement that the defendant is a foreign corporation.

An affidavit for attachment upon the ground that the defendant is a.foreign corporation must affirmatively show that such corporation is not within the exceptions contained in Subd. 1, Sec. 5521 Eev. Stat., and it is not aided by an averment in the petition, though sworn to positively, that the defendant is “doing business at Ashland, Kentucky,” as such statement does not exclude the fact that it may also be doing business in this state and owning or using a part of its capital or plant in this state.

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-mfg-co-v-ashland-sheet-mill-co-ohiocirct-1908.