Grahl v. Matthews

Ohio Supreme Court

Grahl v. Matthews

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 135

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 19, 1961·No. No. 36778·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant did not permit judgment to be taken against her or refuse to plead further. The sustaining of the motion to strike a part of the amended answer, considering such motion as a demurrer, leaves the cause still pending in the trial court. The order of the trial court, considering the motion to strike the second defense from the amended answer as a demurrer and sustaining it, is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken. Holbrook, Admr., v. Connelly, 6 Ohio St., 199.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant did not permit judgment to be taken against her or refuse to plead further. The sustaining of the motion to strike a part of the amended answer, considering such motion as a demurrer, leaves the cause still pending in the trial court. The order of the trial court, considering the motion to strike the second defense from the amended answer as a demurrer and sustaining it, is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken. Holbrook, Admr., v. Connelly, 6 Ohio St., 199.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., not participating.

Grahl v. Matthews, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 135 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 135 (Grahl v. Matthews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.