Finn v. Finn

Ohio Court of Appeals

Finn v. Finn

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 55

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 1924

DocketNo. 1455

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 55 (Finn v. Finn) 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.

Bluebook

Finn v. Finn, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

CHITTENDEN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Esther Finn in the common pleas against Julius Finn to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant in operating his automobile. The plaintiff and the defendant were husband and wife. The petition alleged that the defendant, Julius Finn, negligently operated the automobile so as to come into collision with a tree, as the result of which the plaintiff was injured. The defendant filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, which was sustained. In affirming the judgment, the court of appeals held:

1. Although the statute conferred upon the wife the fright to sue separately for torts committed against her, it does not authorize an action against her husband for damages arising from an automobile accident.

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

CHITTENDEN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Esther Finn in the common pleas against Julius Finn to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant in operating his automobile. The plaintiff and the defendant were husband and wife. The petition alleged that the defendant, Julius Finn, negligently operated the automobile so as to come into collision with a tree, as the result of which the plaintiff was injured. The defendant filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, which was sustained. In affirming the judgment, the court of appeals held:

1. Although the statute conferred upon the wife the fright to sue separately for torts committed against her, it does not authorize an action against her husband for damages arising from an automobile accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finn-v-finn-ohioctapp-1924.