Williams v. Crockett

Hamilton Circuit Court

Williams v. Crockett

23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 396, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 347, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 326

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided July 9, 1910·Published

Opinion

QIFFEN, P. J.

The plaintiff in error not only denied the existence of any special contract with the defendant in error, bnt made such denial in uniting before suit was commenced.

The defendant in error thereupon elected to sue as upon an implied quantum meruit for the value of the services rendered, and recovered a verdict. The judgment should be affirmed. Ralston v. Kohl, 30 Ohio St. 92.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

QIFFEN, P. J.

The plaintiff in error not only denied the existence of any special contract with the defendant in error, bnt made such denial in uniting before suit was commenced.

The defendant in error thereupon elected to sue as upon an implied quantum meruit for the value of the services rendered, and recovered a verdict. The judgment should be affirmed. Ralston v. Kohl, 30 Ohio St. 92.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

Williams v. Crockett, 23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 396, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 347, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 326 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

23 Ohio C.C. Dec. 396 (Williams v. Crockett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.