Hawkins v. Montgomery

Ohio Supreme Court

Hawkins v. Montgomery

88 Ohio St. (N.S.) 573

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 20, 1913

DocketNo. 13195

StatusPublished

This text of 88 Ohio St. (N.S.) 573 (Hawkins v. Montgomery) 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.

Bluebook

Hawkins v. Montgomery, 88 Ohio St. (N.S.) 573 (Ohio 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Judg-; fnent affirmed as to petition in error and modified as prayed for in cross-petition in error.

■ It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment, of the said circuit court be, and the same is, hereby affirmed as against said plaintiff in error and as to all matters presented by the petition in error.

And coming to consider the cross-petition in error of said Wesley Montgomery, it is considered [574]*574and adjudged that said circuit court erred in finding that Nutter & Bourner, The Wilson Mill & Lumber Company, and The Superior Portland Cement Company, or either of them, had a lien upon said fund, and it is ordered and adjudged that they be excluded from participation therein.

Shauck, C. J., Johnson, Do.nahue, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

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

Judg-; fnent affirmed as to petition in error and modified as prayed for in cross-petition in error.

■ It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment, of the said circuit court be, and the same is, hereby affirmed as against said plaintiff in error and as to all matters presented by the petition in error.

And coming to consider the cross-petition in error of said Wesley Montgomery, it is considered [574]*574and adjudged that said circuit court erred in finding that Nutter & Bourner, The Wilson Mill & Lumber Company, and The Superior Portland Cement Company, or either of them, had a lien upon said fund, and it is ordered and adjudged that they be excluded from participation therein.

Shauck, C. J., Johnson, Do.nahue, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Ohio St. (N.S.) 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-montgomery-ohio-1913.