Legal Opinion

Haisman v. Crismar

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 9, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By SMITH, J.

The only question urged in this case and submitted to the court is as to whether the plaintiff below had a right to prosecute this case against her. There is no question but what the original service on her while she was a minor was defective. The filing of her original answer on January 14th, 1931, did not waive the statutory requirement as to service on a minor. Neither, she nor anyone else on her behalf could waive the requirements of the statute as to service on her as a minor. It is urged by counsel for defendant in error that permitting said answer to remain on file…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Keystone Coal & Coke Co. v. FeketeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Templeman v. HesterOhio Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. Crabbe v. JonesTuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas · 1945
  3. Bobo v. BellOhio Court of Appeals · 1959
  4. State ex rel. Maxwell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API