Legal Opinion

Brown, Admr. v. Bauman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 5, 1934No. 2978PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By RICHARDS, J.

An answer was filed, and when the case was reached for trial it was contended by-counsel for defendant that the action was one to recover for personal injuries and not one to recoven for death by wrongful act. We can not agree with that contention. The manifest purpose of the pleader, judg'ing by the averments of the petition, was not to recover damages for personal injuries suffered during the two days elapsing’between the injury and the death, but to recover for wrongful death. In no fewer than seven places in the original petition the averment, in slightly differing…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. WulfSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Whitson, Admr. v. T.C. Ry. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Love v. Southern Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1901
  4. South Carolina Railroad v. NixSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Baughman v. HowerOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Ebeling, Admx. v. Harman, Admx.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1948
  3. Wilmers v. VailOhio Court of Appeals · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API