Puerrung v. Carter-Crume Co.

Hamilton Circuit Court

Puerrung v. Carter-Crume Co.

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 411

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided January 15, 1898·Published

Opinion

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be affirmed'; that sec. 148c, Rev. Stat., which in effect provides that in actions brought in this state against foreign corporations which have complied with the provisions of said statute they shall not be subject to process of attachment, under sec. 5521, Rev. Stat., or any law of Ohio, on the ground that it is a foreign corporation or a non-resident of the state, is a valid and constitutional law.

Cox and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be affirmed'; that sec. 148c, Rev. Stat., which in effect provides that in actions brought in this state against foreign corporations which have complied with the provisions of said statute they shall not be subject to process of attachment, under sec. 5521, Rev. Stat., or any law of Ohio, on the ground that it is a foreign corporation or a non-resident of the state, is a valid and constitutional law.

Cox and Swing, JJ., concur.

Puerrung v. Carter-Crume Co., 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 411 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 411 (Puerrung v. Carter-Crume Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.