Richards v. Burson

Ohio Supreme Court

Richards v. Burson

75 Ohio St. (N.S.) 576

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 16, 1906

DocketNo. 9939

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Ohio St. (N.S.) 576 (Richards v. Burson) 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

Richards v. Burson, 75 Ohio St. (N.S.) 576 (Ohio 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of said circuit court be and the'same is hereby reversed, and this court proceeding to render the judgment which the circuit court should have rendered reverses the judgment of the court of common pleas on the ground that said court of common pleas erred in directing the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, Sarah E. Burson, there being evidence before the jury tending to prove each material allegation in the petition put in issue by her answer. It is the further opinion of this court that said Sarah E. Burson, as a former policy-holder, if .she was a policy-holder in said association, was not a necessary party to the action in which the receiver was appointed and the assessment made. This cause is remanded to the court of common pleas for new trial and further proceedings according to law.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of said circuit court be and the'same is hereby reversed, and this court proceeding to render the judgment which the circuit court should have rendered reverses the judgment of the court of common pleas on the ground that said court of common pleas erred in directing the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, Sarah E. Burson, there being evidence before the jury tending to prove each material allegation in the petition put in issue by her answer. It is the further opinion of this court that said Sarah E. Burson, as a former policy-holder, if .she was a policy-holder in said association, was not a necessary party to the action in which the receiver was appointed and the assessment made. This cause is remanded to the court of common pleas for new trial and further proceedings according to law.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Ohio St. (N.S.) 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-burson-ohio-1906.