City of Findlay v. Pertz
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio. This was an action by John W. Pertz and George B. Stewart against the city of Findlay, Ohio, to recover the price of certain automatic gas separators alleged to have been sold to said city. In the circuit court the plaintiffs recovered judgment. Defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio. This was an action by John W. Pertz and George B. Stewart against the city of Findlay, Ohio, to recover the price of certain automatic gas separators alleged to have been sold to said city. In the circuit court the plaintiffs recovered judgment. Defendant brings error. The facts necessary to be stated to an understanding of the legal questions to be decided are substantially these: The plaintiff in error is a municipal corporation of the state of Ohio. It owned and operated a plant…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
1. The objection that the bill of exceptions was not filed during the term is not well taken. During the term at which the judgment was rendered, and on the 19th of September, 1893, leave was granted to file a bill of exceptions within 40 days. By an order made December 13, 1893, it was recited that a bill of exceptions had been allowed and signed and filed on the 24th of October, 1893. This was within the time allowed by the order made during the trial term, and was entirely within the power of the court to permit.
2. The objection that the bill of exceptions does not show that exceptions to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Tool Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Cook v. TullisSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Adams Mining Co. v. SenterMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Moore v. MandlebaumMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Cahall v. LoflandCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1921
- Continental Management, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
- State Trust & Savings Bank v. Hermosa Land & Cattle Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1925
- United States v. Pan-American Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.