Somers v. Noble

238 N.E.2d 544, 15 Ohio St. 2d 61, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 35, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 372
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1968·No. No. 41024·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

238 N.E.2d 544 (Somers v. Noble) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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