Stout v. Lisinger

Stark County Court of Common Pleas

Stout v. Lisinger

1 Tapp. Rep. 241

DecidedMarch 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Tapp. Rep. 241 (Stout v. Lisinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Stark County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stout v. Lisinger, 1 Tapp. Rep. 241 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

President.

Filing a declaration in tbe original suit was a waiver

of bail, and might have been placed in bar of tbis action; so the discharge of the principal, when taken on a ca sa issued on the judgment obtained in the suit to compel an appearance, in which this bond was .taken, is a discharge of the demand secured by it. It is evident, therefore, that the plaintiff ought not to recover, and could not recover, had not the defendant neglected making any defence, and by his default left tbe question to be how much, and not whether any, damages. The verdict ought to be for mere nominal damages. Verdict for 6 cents.

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

President.

Filing a declaration in tbe original suit was a waiver

of bail, and might have been placed in bar of tbis action; so the discharge of the principal, when taken on a ca sa issued on the judgment obtained in the suit to compel an appearance, in which this bond was .taken, is a discharge of the demand secured by it. It is evident, therefore, that the plaintiff ought not to recover, and could not recover, had not the defendant neglected making any defence, and by his default left tbe question to be how much, and not whether any, damages. The verdict ought to be for mere nominal damages. Verdict for 6 cents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Tapp. Rep. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stout-v-lisinger-ohctcomplstark-1818.