Gardiner v. M'Dowell's Administrator
This text of 1 Wright 762 (Gardiner v. M'Dowell's Administrator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The declaration says in words, the said note was endorsed to M’Dowell; that is sufficient after verdict. The want ■of an ad damnum in the writ, if of any importance, is cured. The endorsement on the writ shows what the suit is for; the defendant appeared in court and obtained his discharge on common bail, and should then have raised the objection to the form of the writ. ■Omitting to do so then, he waives the objection, and the plaintiff claiming damages in his declaration, supplies the defect. The ^omission to enter a technical appearance in our practice is of [763 no consequence.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
[Summons — how waived; Whitehead v. Post, 3 W. L. M. 195, :200; Kerns v. Roberts, 3 W. L. M. 604, 608.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Wright 762, 1 Ohio Ch. 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardiner-v-mdowells-administrator-ohio-1834.