State ex rel. Hoel v. Goubeaux

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hoel v. Goubeaux

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 340

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 13, 1924

DocketNo. 18185

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 340 (State ex rel. Hoel v. Goubeaux) 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

State ex rel. Hoel v. Goubeaux, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 340 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

WANAMAKER, J.

Where an attorney at law has been duly employed by a board of county commissioners, pursuant to Sections 2412 and 2413, General Code, and pursuant to such, employment has rendered a bill for the value pf such services1, with incidental expenses, and such bill is duly considered, allowed and endorsed by the board of county commissioners, the county auditor is not justified in refusing to issue a voucher for the amount of such bill, but must issue his voucher pursuant to Section 2570, General Code..

Writ allowed.

Marshall, C. J.. Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

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

WANAMAKER, J.

Where an attorney at law has been duly employed by a board of county commissioners, pursuant to Sections 2412 and 2413, General Code, and pursuant to such, employment has rendered a bill for the value pf such services1, with incidental expenses, and such bill is duly considered, allowed and endorsed by the board of county commissioners, the county auditor is not justified in refusing to issue a voucher for the amount of such bill, but must issue his voucher pursuant to Section 2570, General Code..

Writ allowed.

Marshall, C. J.. Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hoel-v-goubeaux-ohio-1924.