Pilliod v. Searles

Ohio Supreme Court

Pilliod v. Searles

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 94

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1927

DocketNo. 19897

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 94 (Pilliod v. Searles) 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

Pilliod v. Searles, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 94 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

DAY, J.

In a proceeding to punish for a contempt of court, where a party is charged with violation of an order of injunction, a master may be appointed to take the testimony relative thereto, report the same to the court for the purpose of making a finding thereon, provided, however, that such party is given opportunity to be present before the master when such testimony is taken, to meet opposing witnesses face to face and to produce evidence in his own behalf, to object to the admission or rejection of evidence and have said objections noted, to present in open court all questions touching the admissibility of such evidence, and to be heard in open court upon the merits of such proceeding. An order of the court finding a party in contempt, based upon testimony so taken, will not be disturbed because such evidence was not taken in open court.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, CJ., Allen, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Kinkade, J., not participating.

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

DAY, J.

In a proceeding to punish for a contempt of court, where a party is charged with violation of an order of injunction, a master may be appointed to take the testimony relative thereto, report the same to the court for the purpose of making a finding thereon, provided, however, that such party is given opportunity to be present before the master when such testimony is taken, to meet opposing witnesses face to face and to produce evidence in his own behalf, to object to the admission or rejection of evidence and have said objections noted, to present in open court all questions touching the admissibility of such evidence, and to be heard in open court upon the merits of such proceeding. An order of the court finding a party in contempt, based upon testimony so taken, will not be disturbed because such evidence was not taken in open court.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, CJ., Allen, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Kinkade, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilliod-v-searles-ohio-1927.