Leonard v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Leonard v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co.

148 N.E. 299, 112 Ohio St. 623, 112 Ohio St. (N.S.) 623, 1925 Ohio LEXIS 281

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 26, 1925

Docket18968

StatusPublished

This text of 148 N.E. 299 (Leonard v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co.) 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

Leonard v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 148 N.E. 299, 112 Ohio St. 623, 112 Ohio St. (N.S.) 623, 1925 Ohio LEXIS 281 (Ohio 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The plaintiff, a non-resident of Ohio, a foreign railroad corporation, with no agent, office, or place of business within the state, sued the defendants within the state for freight and demurrage charges. Plaintiffs in error claim that the municipal court dismissed their counterclaim for damages upon the ground that a shipper cannot counterclaim for damages when a petition for freight and demurrage charges is brought against the shipper by a railroad company. The contention of plaintiffs in error in brief is that under these facts they have been barred of their day in court upon the counterclaim, and hence have been denied the equal protection of the laws within this jurisdiction.

However, the municipal court is a court of record and speaks through its journal.

The record does not disclose that the counterclaim was dismissed. As disclosed by the record, a hearing was had upon the merits, upon the agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. No constitutional question, therefore, is presented in the case, and the petition in error must be dismissed.

Petition in error dismissed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade, and Robinson, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

The plaintiff, a non-resident of Ohio, a foreign railroad corporation, with no agent, office, or place of business within the state, sued the defendants within the state for freight and demurrage charges. Plaintiffs in error claim that the municipal court dismissed their counterclaim for damages upon the ground that a shipper cannot counterclaim for damages when a petition for freight and demurrage charges is brought against the shipper by a railroad company. The contention of plaintiffs in error in brief is that under these facts they have been barred of their day in court upon the counterclaim, and hence have been denied the equal protection of the laws within this jurisdiction.

However, the municipal court is a court of record and speaks through its journal.

The record does not disclose that the counterclaim was dismissed. As disclosed by the record, a hearing was had upon the merits, upon the agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. No constitutional question, therefore, is presented in the case, and the petition in error must be dismissed.

Petition in error dismissed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade, and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.E. 299, 112 Ohio St. 623, 112 Ohio St. (N.S.) 623, 1925 Ohio LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-elgin-joliet-eastern-ry-co-ohio-1925.