Legal Opinion
Hurd v. John B. Ransom & Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 28, 1920PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error : Court of Appeals for Hamilton county.
1Opinion of the CourtHamilton, J.
Error is predicated here upon the granting of the motion of the defendant below to quash and set aside the service of summons upon the defendant. Defendant appeared for the purposes of the motion only.
The defendant below was a Tennessee corporation, whose place of business was in Nashville. It had no agents residing in Ohio. It transacted its business in the different states in the Union by mail. It was engaged in the lumber business. All orders taken were subject to the approval of the home office in Nashville, Tennessee.
The suit instituted below was upon an alleged breach of contract…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. Pennsylvania Steel Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
- Tatum v. GeistWashington Supreme Court · 1905
- Towne v. National Machinery Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1917
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Ignazio Antonino Mannino, A/K/A Nino (d.c. No. 89-Cr-00003-2) United States of America v. Emanuele Salvatore Mannino, A/K/A Sal (d.c. No. 89-Cr-00003-4) Ignazio Antonino Mannino and Emanuele Salvatore ManninoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Rucker v. Personal Finance Co. of Columbus, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1948
- Israel v. Champion Shoe Machinery Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1925
- MacKey v. ElliottOhio Court of Appeals · 1958