Legal Opinion

Groner v. Kissell Improvement Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1933Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HORNBECK, PJ.

The action of plaintiff proceeds as one at law for money due. The defenses asserted, except that which avers that there is no contract, are equitable. The relief sought is a bar to the recovery of plaintiff. There is no doubt that the action for the plaintiff for intermediate installments, and the other amounts prayed for, is predicated upon express terms of the contract, agreed to by the parties as representative of their purpose. If we accede to the claim of defendants that plaintiff has misconceived its cause of action, then we are requiring the plaintiff to do…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Will-O-Way Development Co. v. MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API