Legal Opinion

Hizar v. Cowan

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 10, 1935No. 176PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By MATTHEWS, J.

An examination of McGowan v Rishel, supra, discloses that it did not involve two actions for the same cause. Only one action had been filed. In that action two defendants had been joined, McGowan being one of them. His demurrer on the ground of misjoinder of parties defendant was sustained on October 5th, 1928, and in the entry sustaining it, it was “further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendant, Lawrence McGowan, be, and he is hereby, dismissed from the case and that he go hence with his costs.” Thereafter, on May 31st, 1930, and while said entry was in full…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Conrad v. SarverOhio Court of Appeals · 1954
  2. Hershner v. Deibig, a MinorOhio Court of Appeals · 1939
  3. Cero Realty Corp. v. American Manufacturers Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API