Legal Opinion

Canal Winchester Bank v. Exline

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 30, 1938No. 2826Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HORNBECK, J.

Plaintiff’s action against defendants was predicated upon a cognovit note. The petition was in the short form and judgment taken on the warrant of attorney. The petition averred that the plaintiff acquired the note from the payee for valuable consideration, namely, $200.00, on November 16, 1936. Judgment was entered September 29, 1937.

In January, 1938, during the term in which the judgment was rendered, the defendants moved -for its suspension on the grounds that it was taken upon a warrant of attorney and defendants were not summoned or otherwise legally notified of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Underwood v. QuanticSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
  2. Miller v. McGillOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  3. Graham v. Dayton Morris Plan BankOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API