Rosenstiel v. Jones Bros. Electric

Ohio Circuit Courts

Rosenstiel v. Jones Bros. Electric

20 Ohio C.C. 705

DecidedDecember 15, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ohio C.C. 705 (Rosenstiel v. Jones Bros. Electric) 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

Rosenstiel v. Jones Bros. Electric, 20 Ohio C.C. 705 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, J.

This suit was brought in the common pleas where a temporary injunction was granted.

The temporary injunction was on motion of defendant, the Jones Co., set aside by Judge Evans. Rosenstiel appealed and the circuit court sustained Judge Evans in the following opinion:

“While we are of the opinion on the allegations of the petition, and of the amended petition which we receive as an affidavit, that the contract between the parties was not for one year only, but then in compliance with its terms, that he was entitled to be supplied with the motive power for the full term ■of three years, yet we think that the decision of the case of Steinau v. The Gas Co., 48 Ohio St., 324, requires us to hold that the petition and evidence do not show that the plaintiff may not have full and adequate relief in damages by a suit at law, in case the contract is broken by the defendant, and therefore that no case is made entitling the plaintiff to an in[706]*706junction as prayed for. It is therefore refused and the stay heretofore allowed in this court is vaoated. ”

Granger & Hunt, for Rosenstiel. Pogue, Pottenger & Pogue, for the Jones Co.

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

SMITH, J.

This suit was brought in the common pleas where a temporary injunction was granted.

The temporary injunction was on motion of defendant, the Jones Co., set aside by Judge Evans. Rosenstiel appealed and the circuit court sustained Judge Evans in the following opinion:

“While we are of the opinion on the allegations of the petition, and of the amended petition which we receive as an affidavit, that the contract between the parties was not for one year only, but then in compliance with its terms, that he was entitled to be supplied with the motive power for the full term ■of three years, yet we think that the decision of the case of Steinau v. The Gas Co., 48 Ohio St., 324, requires us to hold that the petition and evidence do not show that the plaintiff may not have full and adequate relief in damages by a suit at law, in case the contract is broken by the defendant, and therefore that no case is made entitling the plaintiff to an in[706]*706junction as prayed for. It is therefore refused and the stay heretofore allowed in this court is vaoated. ”

Granger & Hunt, for Rosenstiel. Pogue, Pottenger & Pogue, for the Jones Co.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ohio C.C. 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenstiel-v-jones-bros-electric-ohiocirct-1892.