Robinson v. McConnell

Ohio Circuit Courts

Robinson v. McConnell

19 Ohio C.C. 716

DecidedJanuary 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. 716 (Robinson v. McConnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. McConnell, 19 Ohio C.C. 716 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

HALE, J.

The ease of Helen Robinson, plaintiff in error, versus Theodore P. McConnell, sheriff, defendant in error, is before us.

The only question necessary to be determined under the assignment of errors in this case, is, can a party to an action 'be compelled to answer questions put to him in an attempt to take his deposition to be used on the hearing of a motion for the appointment of a receiver.

One of the objects of taking the deposition of this plaintiff in error was that it was to be used upon the hearing of such motion.

We have heretofore held that the deposition of a party f*r that purpose, was authorized by the statute, and might be taken even though the party resided within the jurisdiction of the court. And, while it may sometimes work a hardship, we see no reason why we should change that holding. And, adhering to that holding, it results in the affirmance of the judgment of the court of common pleas.

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

HALE, J.

The ease of Helen Robinson, plaintiff in error, versus Theodore P. McConnell, sheriff, defendant in error, is before us.

The only question necessary to be determined under the assignment of errors in this case, is, can a party to an action 'be compelled to answer questions put to him in an attempt to take his deposition to be used on the hearing of a motion for the appointment of a receiver.

One of the objects of taking the deposition of this plaintiff in error was that it was to be used upon the hearing of such motion.

We have heretofore held that the deposition of a party f*r that purpose, was authorized by the statute, and might be taken even though the party resided within the jurisdiction of the court. And, while it may sometimes work a hardship, we see no reason why we should change that holding. And, adhering to that holding, it results in the affirmance of the judgment of the court of common pleas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-mcconnell-ohiocirct-1900.