Nott v. Johnson
Ohio Supreme Court
In error to the district court of Cuyahoga county. In July, 1854, Johnson filed a petition in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, against the plaintiffs in error and one Horace Nott, in which he says “that the scow Mary Ann, of which he was the owner, on the 7th day of April, 1854, was ashore on the west side of the west pier at the harbor of Cleveland, and on that day the plaintiff hired of their owners the scows Helen and Eddy to go out of the harbor of Cleveland…
Read the full summary
In error to the district court of Cuyahoga county. In July, 1854, Johnson filed a petition in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, against the plaintiffs in error and one Horace Nott, in which he says “that the scow Mary Ann, of which he was the owner, on the 7th day of April, 1854, was ashore on the west side of the west pier at the harbor of Cleveland, and on that day the plaintiff hired of their owners the scows Helen and Eddy to go out of the harbor of Cleveland and light off the said Mary Ann, and at the same time employed the defendants with their steam-tug, called the ‘ Cliff…
1Opinion of the CourtSutliff, J.
The plaintiffs in error present for our consideration the single question: Ought the judgment of the district court, upon their motion in arrest of judgment, to have been entered in their favor ?
*The answer to this question depends, as suggested by counsel for plaintiffs in error, upon the question, whether the petition discloses any cause of action. If it does not, the motion should have been sustained. If it does, the motion was properly refused.
A cause of action may be so inartificially or defectively stated as to be insufficient, when objected to by demurrer, to authorize a judgment; and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stilson v. TobeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Smith v. DaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1851