Legal Opinion

Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 7, 1933No. 325Published

1Opinion of the Court

*285OPINION

By BARNES, J.

On the issue raised that there was a written extension of the time of payment to August 1, 1932, no such writing was introduced in evidence and on interrogation it developed that the plaintiff made no claim that any such writing was delivered to him. On the question of extension of payment the testimony of the plaintiff is as follows:

“Q. What was the last payment date that you made there?

A. May 5, 1932.

Q. What happened then between you and the Wurlitzer Company in regard to the purchase of this radio?

A. I went up and explained that I was out of work and did not expect to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bainum v. Midland Acceptance Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API