Legal Opinion

Ludwig Hommel & Co. v. Incorporated Village

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1930No. 21894PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The plaintiff in error herein will be referred to as. the plaintiff,.and the defendant in error as the defendant, throughout this opinion.

The petition is in short form, and claims to state a cause of action for conversion. Since the demurrer to the second and third defenses in the answer searches the record, the sufficiency of the petition is also challenged, and is here considered.

The action is a continuation of litigation between the same parties and over the same subject-matter involved in the case of Ludwig Hommel & Co. v. Incorporated Village of Woodsfield, 115 Ohio St., 675, 155 N. E.,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ludwig Hommel & Co. v. Incorporated Village of WoodsfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Village of Indian Hill v. AtkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Village of Moscow v. Moscow Village CouncilClermont County Court of Common Pleas · 1984
  3. Professional Property Services, Inc. v. Agler Green Townhouses, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API