Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358

CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati

DecidedDecember 10, 1924

DocketNo. 59135

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358 (Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-co-v-white-cliffs-product-co-ohsuperctcinci-1924.