Ulman Einstein & Co. v. Effinger

Ohio Circuit Courts

Ulman Einstein & Co. v. Effinger

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 746, 1897 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 566

DecidedMay 5, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 746 (Ulman Einstein & Co. v. Effinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ulman Einstein & Co. v. Effinger, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 746, 1897 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 566 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

Memorandum of decision.

First. A judgment may be set aside for fraud notwithstanding the fact that no defense was made at the time it was rendered although the defendant was properly served with summons by copy thereof left at her usual place of residence.

Second. A judgment procured against a party on an account which she never owed, nor became neither directly nor indirectly liable for its payment, constitutes a fraud on the court rendering such judgment, which should be set aside in a proper proceeding brought for that purpose.

Third. An averment in a petition that goods or merchandise were sold to a husband, and that afterwards and before suit is brought to recover the price thereof, tUe plaintiffs insert the name of the wife of such husband in said account, and without her knowledge or consent, is a sufficient averment of fraud to constitute a cause of action, and a demurrer to such petition and pertinent interrogatories attached thereto is properly overruled.

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

Adams, J.

Memorandum of decision.

First. A judgment may be set aside for fraud notwithstanding the fact that no defense was made at the time it was rendered although the defendant was properly served with summons by copy thereof left at her usual place of residence.

Second. A judgment procured against a party on an account which she never owed, nor became neither directly nor indirectly liable for its payment, constitutes a fraud on the court rendering such judgment, which should be set aside in a proper proceeding brought for that purpose.

Third. An averment in a petition that goods or merchandise were sold to a husband, and that afterwards and before suit is brought to recover the price thereof, tUe plaintiffs insert the name of the wife of such husband in said account, and without her knowledge or consent, is a sufficient averment of fraud to constitute a cause of action, and a demurrer to such petition and pertinent interrogatories attached thereto is properly overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 746, 1897 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulman-einstein-co-v-effinger-ohiocirct-1897.