Tanner v. Espey

Ohio Court of Appeals

Tanner v. Espey

14 Ohio Law. Abs. 672

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 1933

DocketNo 385

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 Ohio Law. Abs. 672 (Tanner v. Espey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tanner v. Espey, 14 Ohio Law. Abs. 672 (Ohio Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

HORNBECK, PJ.

There is one question at law presented upon the record, namely: Did the release heretofore quoted relieve defendant from any liability on the cause of action asserted against him in the petition?

If Billiter in the action against him for damages was liable for the further damages suffered by the plaintiff because of the maltreatment of the defendant of her injuries sustained in the automobile accident, then the release included the damages sought to be claimed in the instant action. If so, as there can be but one recovery, the demurrer was properly overruled. If not, it should have been sustained.

We have examined the authorities cited and are of opinion that the case of Seymour v Carroll, 43 Oh Ap 60, (13 Abs 21; 182 NE 647); Ohio Bar, November 14, 1932, which it is admitted decided the identical question presented in the instant case is properly determined and we therefore follow it. In the Seymour case the court has carefully considered and discussed the pertinent authorities and for us to further consider them would be a work of supererogation. Judgment affirmed.

KUNKLE and BARNES, JJ, concur.

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

HORNBECK, PJ.

There is one question at law presented upon the record, namely: Did the release heretofore quoted relieve defendant from any liability on the cause of action asserted against him in the petition?

If Billiter in the action against him for damages was liable for the further damages suffered by the plaintiff because of the maltreatment of the defendant of her injuries sustained in the automobile accident, then the release included the damages sought to be claimed in the instant action. If so, as there can be but one recovery, the demurrer was properly overruled. If not, it should have been sustained.

We have examined the authorities cited and are of opinion that the case of Seymour v Carroll, 43 Oh Ap 60, (13 Abs 21; 182 NE 647); Ohio Bar, November 14, 1932, which it is admitted decided the identical question presented in the instant case is properly determined and we therefore follow it. In the Seymour case the court has carefully considered and discussed the pertinent authorities and for us to further consider them would be a work of supererogation. Judgment affirmed.

KUNKLE and BARNES, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Ohio Law. Abs. 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-espey-ohioctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack