Mathews v. Mackey

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Mathews v. Mackey

33 Ohio C.C. Dec. 127, 18 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 413, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 377

DecidedNovember 28, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ohio C.C. Dec. 127 (Mathews v. Mackey) 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

Mathews v. Mackey, 33 Ohio C.C. Dec. 127, 18 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 413, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 377 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

WINCH, J.

The petition in this case is dismissed and an injunction refused for the reasons stated by Judge Babcock when deciding the ease made before him.

The only additional matter for consideration in this court is the competency of certain testimony given by Frank Cadwell, who appears as a defendant in the case.

[128]*128The evidence shows that he is not a necessary party to the action. His wife, upon the happening of a certain contingency, might become the owner of the premises in dispute and he then become clothed with an inchoate right of dower therein, but such remote connection with the matter is insufficient to require his appearance as a party in the case.

It is true that plaintiffs claim under a deceased former owner, but they can not exclude witnesses at will by the convenient procedure of making them parties.

Henry and Marvin, JJ., concur.

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