Prentice v. Prentice

Ohio Supreme Court

Prentice v. Prentice

90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 386

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1914

DocketNo. 13644

StatusPublished

This text of 90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 386 (Prentice v. Prentice) 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

Prentice v. Prentice, 90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 386 (Ohio 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error. See journal entry.

This court finds that the said circuit court erred in its finding and decree that the claims of the said Elmer E. Prentice, Administrator, and Anna M. Carpenter, Administratrix, were each of them a lien on the premises of the plaintiff in error which were described in the answers and cross-petitions of the said defendants in error. Coming now to render the judgment that the said circuit court should have rendered, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the -answers and cross-petitions of the said Elmer E. Prentice, Administrator, and Anna M. Carpenter, Administratrix, be, and the same are hereby, dismissed.

It is further ordered that the plaintiff in error recover of the said defendants in error her costs herein and in the courts below.

And this cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings according to law.

Nichols, C. J., Johnson, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error. See journal entry.

This court finds that the said circuit court erred in its finding and decree that the claims of the said Elmer E. Prentice, Administrator, and Anna M. Carpenter, Administratrix, were each of them a lien on the premises of the plaintiff in error which were described in the answers and cross-petitions of the said defendants in error. Coming now to render the judgment that the said circuit court should have rendered, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the -answers and cross-petitions of the said Elmer E. Prentice, Administrator, and Anna M. Carpenter, Administratrix, be, and the same are hereby, dismissed.

It is further ordered that the plaintiff in error recover of the said defendants in error her costs herein and in the courts below.

And this cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings according to law.

Nichols, C. J., Johnson, Wanamaker, Newman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Ohio St. (N.S.) 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prentice-v-prentice-ohio-1914.