Legal Opinion

Cohen v. Goldberger

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1923No. 17707PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

In the case out of which the issues now before us arise (Morgenthaler v. Cohen, 103 Ohio St., 328, 132 N. E., 730), it was held that the claim for commission from the United States Steel Products Company, which Goldberger assigned to Morgenthaler, belonged to the partnership, consisting of Goldberger and Cohen, and that the consideration therefor, in the amount of $26,-866, was the pre-existing debt of Goldberger to Morgenthaler. Morgenthaler was held to have acquired no greater right by reason of such assignment than Goldberger in fact possessed, and that Cohen, not having been made a party…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Winton v. AmosSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Morgenthaler v. CohenOhio Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Foor v. Huntington National BankOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Chancey v. BauerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
  3. In Re John James Hronek, Bankrupt. Charles Silverman, Trustee v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
  4. Fire Protection Resources, Inc. v. Johnson Fire Protection Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Billingham v. ThieleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API