Pratt v. Walworth

Ohio Supreme Court

Pratt v. Walworth

64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 123

DecidedJanuary 22, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 123 (Pratt v. Walworth) 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

Pratt v. Walworth, 64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 123 (Ohio 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court :

The petition in error here filed by L. C. and W. L. Smith is not properly styled a cross-petition in error. There was no judgment below in favor of Pratt. The judgment rendered was entire and wholly in favor of Walworth; and what is styled a cross-petition in error was in fact a petition in error by which the Smiths sought precisely the same remedy that was sought by Pratt, and the relief which they seek is in Pratt’s right. Inasmuch as they relied upon Pratt’s petition in error and upon his counsel to comply with the rule, the case affords no ground for reinstatement.

Motion overruled.

Ale Concur.

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

By the Court :

The petition in error here filed by L. C. and W. L. Smith is not properly styled a cross-petition in error. There was no judgment below in favor of Pratt. The judgment rendered was entire and wholly in favor of Walworth; and what is styled a cross-petition in error was in fact a petition in error by which the Smiths sought precisely the same remedy that was sought by Pratt, and the relief which they seek is in Pratt’s right. Inasmuch as they relied upon Pratt’s petition in error and upon his counsel to comply with the rule, the case affords no ground for reinstatement.

Motion overruled.

Ale Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-walworth-ohio-1901.