Legal Opinion

Crandall v. Irwin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1942No. 28692PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

The decision of this case depends upon whether the six-year limitation contained in Section 8321, General Code, is a limitation not only on the remedy, but of the right as well. Stated differently, may the saving clause of Section 11228, General Code, toll the limitation contained in Section 8321?

Section 8321, General Code, provides: ‘ ‘ The several liens herein provided for shall be liens from the date the first labor was performed, or the first machinery, materials, or fuel, was furnished by the contractor under the original contract, and shall continue for six years after said affidavit is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mahoning Park Co. v. Warren Home Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. C. C. Constance & Sons v. LayOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Beach v. Union Gas & Electric Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1935

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Duran v. Henderson, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2002
  2. Guernsey Bank v. Milano Sports Enterprises, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Willes v. PalmerIdaho Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Osborne v. AK Steel/Armco Steel Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Osborne v. AK Steel/Armco Steel Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002

15 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