Wasserstrom v. Foit

Ohio Supreme Court

Wasserstrom v. Foit

181 N.E. 815, 124 Ohio St. 675, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 675, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 351

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1932

Docket23136

StatusPublished

This text of 181 N.E. 815 (Wasserstrom v. Foit) 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

Wasserstrom v. Foit, 181 N.E. 815, 124 Ohio St. 675, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 675, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 351 (Ohio 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason that the motion of plaintiff in error, Nathan Wasserstrom, asking the court to direct the receivers theretofore appointed in the case of Colby v. Price to pay him five and one-half months rent, being the period of the possession of the receivers in such action, such payment being the only relief sought by Wasserstrom, does not constitute a chancery case within the purview of Article IV, Section 6, of the Constitution of Ohio, providing that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction in chancery cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

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

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason that the motion of plaintiff in error, Nathan Wasserstrom, asking the court to direct the receivers theretofore appointed in the case of Colby v. Price to pay him five and one-half months rent, being the period of the possession of the receivers in such action, such payment being the only relief sought by Wasserstrom, does not constitute a chancery case within the purview of Article IV, Section 6, of the Constitution of Ohio, providing that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction in chancery cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.E. 815, 124 Ohio St. 675, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 675, 1932 Ohio LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasserstrom-v-foit-ohio-1932.