Legal Opinion

Kelly v. Mills

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1838PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Covenant reserved in Hui’on. The defendant being in default for want of plea, a jury was impaneled to assess the damages, and upon the return of their verdict, the counsel for the defendants moved in arrest of judgment; the questions arising upon that motion were reserved for decision here. The state of the case upon which the decision of the court rests, is fully stated in the opinion of the judge.

1Opinion of the Court

Judge Wood

delivered the opinion of the court:

The writing on which the plaintiffs declare, is between Cahoon of the first part, Kelly- and Kilborn of the second part, and Wildman and Mills of the third part. So much of it as it seems material to notice, recites that Cahoon had determined to build in 'Sandusky a mill, of stone, to be propelled by steam, of four stories in height, and sixty by forty feet on the ground. The plaintiffs covenanted to do the work; Cahoon to furnish certain portions of the materials, and to pay the plaintiffs in the manner expressed : one dollar for each perch of…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lloyd v. McDiarmid, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1937

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

Powered by the Exa API