Legal Opinion

Uricich v. Kolesar

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 8, 1936No. 15376PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant and thereafter instituted proceedings in aid of execution wherein the county of Cuyahoga and John J. Boyle, county treasurer, were named as garnishees. A motion to quash service was filed by the garnishees. The court sustained the motion on the ground that the judgment debtor was a county employee. In effect the court held that the county, or county officers acting in its behalf, cannot be made garnishees. Error proceedings were instituted in this court seeking a reversal of the ruling of the Common Pleas Court.

We are asked to interpret…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. MauriceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia · 1823
  2. Durham v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Waterbury v. Board of CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Bazzoli v. LarsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Southern Ohio Finance Corp. v. WahlOhio Court of Appeals · 1929

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. H & A Selmer, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionCity of Cleveland Municipal Court · 1937
  2. In re Municipal Authorities, Pennsylvania Department of Justice1941

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

Powered by the Exa API