Fisher v. Fisher Foundry & Machine Co.
This text of 8 Ohio N.P. 314 (Fisher v. Fisher Foundry & Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Dempsey, J., and Smith, J., concur (Judge Smith basing his concurrence on grounds stated in a separate opinion).
The court below erred in vacating the judgment by default absolutely. . If that judgment was improperly obtained the court below should have suspended the same until it has been adjudged that there is a valid defense to the action. 24 O. S., 625; 46 O S., 639.
The scope of Mr. Tugman’s employment was' broad enough to justify him in entering an appearance for his client and consenting to the amendment to the petition. Therefore we find no irregularity in obtaining the judgment and no other reason why the judgment should have been vacated or suspended.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Ohio N.P. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-fisher-foundry-machine-co-ohsuperctcinci-1901.