Thompson v. Rosenberg

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Thompson v. Rosenberg

28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 596, 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 341, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 375

DecidedMay 17, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 596 (Thompson v. Rosenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Rosenberg, 28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 596, 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 341, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 375 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

WINCH, J.

Thompson brought his action on an attested account, praying for a personal judgment against the defendant, James Rosen[597]*597berg, for the value of certain material furnished toward the construction of a house upon premises owned by Eosenberg at the time the materials were furnished, and that the amount of said account be declared a lien upon said premises. He also made A. B. Katz and others defendants, alleging that they claimed liens upon said premises and praying that they be required to set forth their claims or be forever barred.

It appears that the defendant, Katz, purchased said premises of Rosenberg; no personal judgment was asked against him.

The judgment being in favor of Thompson and against Eosenberg and Katz, the latter appealed the case to this court, where he is met by a motion to dismiss his appeal on the ground that the case is not appealable.

Motion overruled on authority of the ease of Fleming v. Kirkendall, 31 Ohio St. 568.

Henry and Taggart, JJ., concur.

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

WINCH, J.

Thompson brought his action on an attested account, praying for a personal judgment against the defendant, James Rosen[597]*597berg, for the value of certain material furnished toward the construction of a house upon premises owned by Eosenberg at the time the materials were furnished, and that the amount of said account be declared a lien upon said premises. He also made A. B. Katz and others defendants, alleging that they claimed liens upon said premises and praying that they be required to set forth their claims or be forever barred.

It appears that the defendant, Katz, purchased said premises of Rosenberg; no personal judgment was asked against him.

The judgment being in favor of Thompson and against Eosenberg and Katz, the latter appealed the case to this court, where he is met by a motion to dismiss his appeal on the ground that the case is not appealable.

Motion overruled on authority of the ease of Fleming v. Kirkendall, 31 Ohio St. 568.

Henry and Taggart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Ohio C.C. Dec. 596, 16 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 341, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-rosenberg-ohcirctcuyahoga-1909.