Frost v. Blatz
This text of 155 N.E. 158 (Frost v. Blatz) 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.
Opinion
This action was commenced in Cuyahoga Common Pleas for the purpose of recovering a sum of money paid by Frost on the purchase of certain corporate stock on July 6, 1920.
The petition alleges certain fraudulent representations which induced Edward Frost to purchase the stock, and avers that these fraudulent representations were made by one Rubin, an agent of the defendant Charles Blatz. This fraud was discovered almost immediately after payment of money to Rubin, and while said money was in the hands of Blatz demand was made upon Blatz to repay same.
Although this action was comemnced May 10, 1924 no precipe was filed nor summons issued until September 12, 1924 and no 'service was made on that summons. No other summons was issued until December 31, 1924 and that was served Jan. 3, 1925.
The trial court excluded all evidence under the petition and rendered a final judgment dismissing said petition.
Error being prosecuted the Court of Appeals held:
1. This action being based upon fraud the statute of limitations therefor is 4 years.
2. It is plain from the petition that the cause of action accrued July 6, 1920.
3. In view of the fact that service was not had in this action, until after 4 years from the time of cause of action had accrued, it is barred by the statute of limitations.
Judgment of trial court affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
155 N.E. 158, 23 Ohio App. 40, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 324, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-v-blatz-ohioctapp-1926.