Legal Opinion

Novogroder v. Di Paola

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 7, 1919PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal : Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga county.

1Opinion of the CourtDunlap, J.

This cause is here upon appeal. The suit as originally started was for an injunction to restrain the recording of deeds and asking for a cancellation of a certain contract for the transfer of lands. It resolves itself by virtue of the pleadings into a suit for specific performance, and we shall here treat the case as such a suit, the cross-petition of the defendants, Santo Di Paola and Angelina Di Paola, becoming virtually the petition in the case.

It will be sufficient for the purpose of this opinion to state that the answer to this cross-petition sets up as a defense that the Di Paolas are…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pixley v. HugginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Waterbury Savings Bank v. LawlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878
  3. Whitney v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Allott v. American Strawboard Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Goodkind v. BartlettIllinois Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Meerhoff v. Huntington Mortgage Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Catawba West, Inc. v. DomoOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Whitman v. GersonOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. G/GM Real Estate Corp. v. Svisse Chalet Motor Lodge of Ohio, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Metz v. Hawn, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API