Legal Opinion

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Smith

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 3, 1931PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHERICK, PJ.

The plaintiff in error says that he should not be penalized by reason of this omission from the bill of exceptions, and we are not inclined to so do in this case, for the reason that the pertinent facts or contents of the lost letters are set forth in the brief of the defendant in error, and are in part supporting of Smith’s case. The plaintiff in error concedes that the extracts of these lost letters so appearing are true, and in order that justice may be done in this review we are disposed to consider the merits in this matter as if these letters had not been lost and were a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Zwolanek v. Baker Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Finsterwald-Maiden v. AAA South Central OhioOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. McKelvey v. Spitzer Motor Center, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Vocke v. Third National Bank & Trust Co.City of Dayton Municipal Court · 1971
  4. Harding v. Montgomery Ward Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1944
  5. Mazzitti v. Garden City Group, Inc., 06ap-850 (6-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

1 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