Rabb v. Kayline Co.
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 703
This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (Rabb v. Kayline Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Rabb v. Kayline Co., 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).
Opinion
Aug. 13, 1925, the Kayline Co. obtained a cognovit judgment against I. B. Rabb, who a siiort time later filed a motion, and affidavit in support of same, to vacate judgment. The Cleveland Municipal Court, where the judgment was obtained, overruled the motion, and Rabb prosecuted error. The Court of Appeals held:
1. The affidavit filed in support of the motion stated facts which if true, constituted a defense to the action.
2. It was therefore the duty of the court to vacate the judgment so that the defense could be presented.
3. The failure to so vacate constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Duraclean Co. v. Hunter
211 N.E.2d 852 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1965)
Consumer Packing Co. v. Hathman
142 N.E.2d 675 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1957)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabb-v-kayline-co-ohioctapp-1926.