Lippert v. Wirt

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 233, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 469, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 342
CourtCuyahoga Circuit Court
DecidedJune 2, 1911
StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 233 (Lippert v. Wirt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lippert v. Wirt, 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 233, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 469, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 342 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1911).

Opinion

HENRY, J.

When the plaintiff in error disobeyed the order of the court of common pleas to give an additional undertaking for his appeal [234]*234of the cause from a justice of the peace, the proper remedy was dismissal of the appeal. Instead, the court of common pleas granted his adversary’s motion to strike off his answer and render judgment as upon default. The result of either procedure being the same, both as to the parties to the action and the sureties on the appeal bond, no prejudice can ensue from allowing the judgment as rendered to stand.

Affirmed.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 233, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 469, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippert-v-wirt-ohcirctcuyahoga-1911.