Tennant Finance Corp. v. Davis

Ohio Supreme Court

Tennant Finance Corp. v. Davis

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 725

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 31, 1924

DocketNo. 18809

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 725 (Tennant Finance Corp. v. Davis) 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

Tennant Finance Corp. v. Davis, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 725 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

The following is a statement of the facts in the case:

This is an action in mandamus brought on behalf of relator, the Tennant Finance Corporation to compel defendants to deliver a certain automobile to it upon the execution of a bond, as provided in Sec. 6212-43 of the General Code of Ohio. The automobile in question was driven into a garage in the village of Arlington, and was seized by the defendants under claim that it was being used in violation of said section. No person has been arrested or convicted as being in charge of said automobile at said time and place.

The relator is the holder of a valid mortgage upon said automobile, and seeks to compel defendants to deliver the same to it in accordance with the requirements of GC. 6212-43. This action will test the adequacy of law or whether replevin, which was refused upon somewhat similar facts in Buell v. French, 24 N.P. (N.S.) 225, would be proper upon the above stated facts.

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

The following is a statement of the facts in the case:

This is an action in mandamus brought on behalf of relator, the Tennant Finance Corporation to compel defendants to deliver a certain automobile to it upon the execution of a bond, as provided in Sec. 6212-43 of the General Code of Ohio. The automobile in question was driven into a garage in the village of Arlington, and was seized by the defendants under claim that it was being used in violation of said section. No person has been arrested or convicted as being in charge of said automobile at said time and place.

The relator is the holder of a valid mortgage upon said automobile, and seeks to compel defendants to deliver the same to it in accordance with the requirements of GC. 6212-43. This action will test the adequacy of law or whether replevin, which was refused upon somewhat similar facts in Buell v. French, 24 N.P. (N.S.) 225, would be proper upon the above stated facts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tennant-finance-corp-v-davis-ohio-1924.