Toledo Pulp Plaster Co. v. Long

Ohio Court of Appeals

Toledo Pulp Plaster Co. v. Long

10 Ohio App. 442, 31 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 367, 31 Ohio C.A. 367, 1917 Ohio App. LEXIS 204

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 11, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Ohio App. 442 (Toledo Pulp Plaster Co. v. Long) 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

Toledo Pulp Plaster Co. v. Long, 10 Ohio App. 442, 31 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 367, 31 Ohio C.A. 367, 1917 Ohio App. LEXIS 204 (Ohio Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Chittenden, J.

Upon argument of this case it was said that the only question presented was whether an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is appealable under the constitution and laws in effect at this time. The record before this court is >such that this question does not arise for decision, as this cause is not appealable, even though it were to be conceded that an action only to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is an appealable action.

The petition of the plaintiff sets out an amount due upon an account for labor and-material furnished in the erection of a house for the defendants, John Wamsher, Jr., and Anna Wamsher, and a mechanic’s lien perfected to secure the account. The petition prays for personal judgment and a' foreclosure of the lien. The defendants, Wamsher, by answer make only an issue on the [443]*443amount due. The same situation exists between these defendants and other cross-petitioners. In this state of the record the cause is not appealable. (F. P. Rusher Lumber Co. v. Troxel et al., 10 C. C., N. S., 83, affirmed 76 Ohio St., 626, without opinion.) The circuit court in this county reached a similar conclusion in Ashley v. The Conant Brothers’ Furniture Co. et al., 12 C. C., 537.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Kinkade and Richards, JJ., concur.

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

Chittenden, J.

Upon argument of this case it was said that the only question presented was whether an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is appealable under the constitution and laws in effect at this time. The record before this court is >such that this question does not arise for decision, as this cause is not appealable, even though it were to be conceded that an action only to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is an appealable action.

The petition of the plaintiff sets out an amount due upon an account for labor and-material furnished in the erection of a house for the defendants, John Wamsher, Jr., and Anna Wamsher, and a mechanic’s lien perfected to secure the account. The petition prays for personal judgment and a' foreclosure of the lien. The defendants, Wamsher, by answer make only an issue on the [443]*443amount due. The same situation exists between these defendants and other cross-petitioners. In this state of the record the cause is not appealable. (F. P. Rusher Lumber Co. v. Troxel et al., 10 C. C., N. S., 83, affirmed 76 Ohio St., 626, without opinion.) The circuit court in this county reached a similar conclusion in Ashley v. The Conant Brothers’ Furniture Co. et al., 12 C. C., 537.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Kinkade and Richards, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio App. 442, 31 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 367, 31 Ohio C.A. 367, 1917 Ohio App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-pulp-plaster-co-v-long-ohioctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack