Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati·Decided December 10, 1924·No. No. 59135·Published

Opinion

MARK, J.

The Victor L. Phillips Co. sought to recover from the Krippendorf-Tuttle White Cliffs Product Co. on three notes. The Products Go. answered by admitting corporate capacity and denying the allegations in the petition of the Phillips Co. A motion was made by the Phillips Co. to strike said answer from the files, declaring it to be a pure sham, interposed for the purpose of delay; and moved for a summary judgment on the ground that there was no meritorious defense.

The court in striking the answer from the files and in granting the motion for summary judgment, said:

1. If not for the power of the court to grant a summary judgment, where there is no scintilla of defense, a debtor could delay the collection of a just claim by simply filing a formal answer, no matter how frivolous it might be.

2. A trial court has had the power to do this, since the rule was laid down in White v. Calhoun, 82 OS. 401.

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

Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co., 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1924).

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358 (Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.