Legal Opinion

H. S. Leyman Co. v. Piggly-Wiggly Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 6, 1944No. 6225Published

1Opinion

ON REHEARING.

OPINION

By MATTHEWS, J.:

The application for rehearing was granted because the Court desired further argument on the appellees’ contention, that as we had concluded that the appellant did not bear the relation of real party in interest to the cause of action sued upon, it necessarily followed that it could not be prejudiced by the judgment.

However, it should be remembered that while the appellant has conceded that as between it and The Leyman Corporation it would be obliged to account to the latter for the proceeds of any recovery, it has not admitted that it was not the real party…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bryan v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Baker v. Dollar Savings & Trust Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API