Hussman v. Morris

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hussman v. Morris

13 Ohio Law. Abs. 491, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 937

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 1932

DocketNo 1167

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 491 (Hussman v. Morris) 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.

Bluebook

Hussman v. Morris, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 491, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 937 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT

Upon this state of the record and upon the issues made up by answer of plaintiff in error Hussman, the cause came on for trial to the Hon. Robert Patterson, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, who after consideration handed down an extended written opinion, wherein is set forth practically all the cases in Ohio on the subject [492]*492matter involved. The determination of the trial judge is that the Morris machine is not a gambling device per se; that if it be used as a gambling device in violation of the restrictions appearing upon the copyrighted plate on the machine it can not legally be confiscated unless and until it appear that Mr. Morris had knowledge of its illegal use by the merchant vendee.

We are in accord with the judgment and decision of Judge Patterson and in view of the extended presentation of authority appearing in his written opinion we shall not attempt to restate the cases therein appearing.

The concluding paragraph of the entry of injunction approved by the trial court is very broad in its scope, but as the form thereof is not questioned by counsel for plaintiff in error, we assume that reliance is had upon the general claim that the court had no right to grant any injunctive relief.

No error appearing in this record to the prejudice of plaintiffs in error the judgment will be affirmed.

ALLREAD, PJ, HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.

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

BY THE COURT

Upon this state of the record and upon the issues made up by answer of plaintiff in error Hussman, the cause came on for trial to the Hon. Robert Patterson, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, who after consideration handed down an extended written opinion, wherein is set forth practically all the cases in Ohio on the subject [492]*492matter involved. The determination of the trial judge is that the Morris machine is not a gambling device per se; that if it be used as a gambling device in violation of the restrictions appearing upon the copyrighted plate on the machine it can not legally be confiscated unless and until it appear that Mr. Morris had knowledge of its illegal use by the merchant vendee.

We are in accord with the judgment and decision of Judge Patterson and in view of the extended presentation of authority appearing in his written opinion we shall not attempt to restate the cases therein appearing.

The concluding paragraph of the entry of injunction approved by the trial court is very broad in its scope, but as the form thereof is not questioned by counsel for plaintiff in error, we assume that reliance is had upon the general claim that the court had no right to grant any injunctive relief.

No error appearing in this record to the prejudice of plaintiffs in error the judgment will be affirmed.

ALLREAD, PJ, HORNBECK and KUNKLE, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio Law. Abs. 491, 1932 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hussman-v-morris-ohioctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack