Prunkle v. Drzewiecki

Ohio Court of Appeals

Prunkle v. Drzewiecki

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 304, 1930 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1096

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided March 17, 1930·No. No 2323·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

Under the state of the evidence in this case it is apparent that summons was never served on John Prunkle in any manner and that he had no knowledge of the bringing or pendency of the action until long after the judgment was rendered, and has not had his day in court on the original action.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.

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

RICHARDS, J.

Under the state of the evidence in this case it is apparent that summons was never served on John Prunkle in any manner and that he had no knowledge of the bringing or pendency of the action until long after the judgment was rendered, and has not had his day in court on the original action.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.

Prunkle v. Drzewiecki, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 304, 1930 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1096 (Ohio Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 304 (Prunkle v. Drzewiecki) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related