Legal Opinion

White v. Holland Furnace Co.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided December 27, 1939No. 3847PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the motion of the plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendant has answered plaintiff’s original petition by denial and a cross-claim to which plaintiff has replied.

The objection of the defendant is that the second causé of action in the amended complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant’s contention is that the period of limitation began to run from the date of the conversion and, therefore, the action would be barred. On the other hand, it is the plaintiff’s contention that the statute did not…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. WulfSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. L. E. Whitham Const. Co. v. RemerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
  5. United States v. PowellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Barthel v. StammCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1944
  2. Karash v. PigottTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Smith v. Piper Aircraft Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Wiren v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1953
  5. Green v. WalshDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1957

20 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