Wallace v. Scoles
6 Ohio 428
Opinion
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
Wallace v. Scoles, 6 Ohio 428 (Ohio 1834).
6 Ohio 428 (Wallace v. Scoles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hunt v. State
17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 16 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1904)
Henry Newsom's Adm'r v. Ran
18 Ohio St. 240 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1849)