Wallace v. Scoles

Ohio Supreme Court

Wallace v. Scoles

6 Ohio 428

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1834

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 Ohio 428 (Wallace v. Scoles) 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

Wallace v. Scoles, 6 Ohio 428 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

We believe it was error to quash the appeal, though the attorney joined in the bond, in violation of the rule of court of 1831. This conduct on the part of the attorney was a contempt of the court, for which he might be punished. But the bond must be held valid for the benefit of the appellee, otherwise the attorney may escape a legal responsibility voluntarily undertaken, and thus obtain advantage by his own wrongful act. The order to quash is set aside, and the appeal reinstated.

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

By the Court:

We believe it was error to quash the appeal, though the attorney joined in the bond, in violation of the rule of court of 1831. This conduct on the part of the attorney was a contempt of the court, for which he might be punished. But the bond must be held valid for the benefit of the appellee, otherwise the attorney may escape a legal responsibility voluntarily undertaken, and thus obtain advantage by his own wrongful act. The order to quash is set aside, and the appeal reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-scoles-ohio-1834.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack