Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Somers v. Noble

Somers v. Noble

238 N.E.2d 544, 15 Ohio St. 2d 61, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 35, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 372
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 19, 1968
DocketNo. 41024
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 N.E.2d 544 (Somers v. Noble) 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
Somers v. Noble, 238 N.E.2d 544, 15 Ohio St. 2d 61, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 35, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 372 (Ohio 1968).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is clear from a reading of the record that defendant failed to establish any valid defense to the action as required by Sections 2325.06 and 2325.07, Revised Code. Consequently the judgment may not be vacated. The existence of a counterclaim such as that asserted in the cross-petition is not a defense. Bulkley v. Green, 98 Ohio St. 55. In the light of the record, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Schneider, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wolf v. United Radio Cabs, Inc.
270 N.E.2d 675 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 N.E.2d 544, 15 Ohio St. 2d 61, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 35, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somers-v-noble-ohio-1968.