Mazelin v. Mazelin

Ohio Supreme Court

Mazelin v. Mazelin

84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 21, 1911

DocketNo. 11720

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444 (Mazelin v. Mazelin) 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

Mazelin v. Mazelin, 84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444 (Ohio 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in affirming and in not reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas of Licking county. And proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the court of common pleas of Licking county in said cause be and the same is hereby reversed for error in excluding and in not admitting in evidence the agreement of'March 14, 1904, the said agreement being, in the judgment of this court, competent -as contradictory evidence or impeaching evidence; that it was material, and that its exclusion was prejudicial error.

" Spear, C. J., Davis, Sitaucic, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in affirming and in not reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas of Licking county. And proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the court of common pleas of Licking county in said cause be and the same is hereby reversed for error in excluding and in not admitting in evidence the agreement of'March 14, 1904, the said agreement being, in the judgment of this court, competent -as contradictory evidence or impeaching evidence; that it was material, and that its exclusion was prejudicial error.

" Spear, C. J., Davis, Sitaucic, Price and Johnson, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazelin-v-mazelin-ohio-1911.