Riley v. Speraw
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SHERICK, PJ.
The petition in error sets forth several grounds of error, but only one of them is now urged, that being whether the defendant’s daughter was her father’s agent at the time of the accident. It is claimed that the plaintiff having failed to prove, that the daughter was the agent or servant of the father, the court should have sustained the defendant’s repeated motions for a directed verdict and his motion for a new trial.
Counsel for plaintiff in error correctly stress the point that the family purpose doctrine has been repudiated in this state. Elms v Flick, 100 Oh St, 186, 126 NE,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Elliott v. HardinsOhio Supreme Court · 1923
- Hartley v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Bloom v. Leech, Admr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
- Louisville Lozier Co. v. SalleeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Zeeb v. BahnmaierSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Johnston Testers, Inc. v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1958
- Hiller v. ShawOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
- Dahnke v. MeggittOhio Court of Appeals · 1939
- Ross v. BurganOhio Supreme Court · 1955