Legal Opinion

Hale v. Sagamore Hills

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 28, 1934No. 2441Published

1Opinion of the Court

*298OPINION

By WASHBURN, PJ.

It will be noted that no sureties are named,in the body of the document or in connection with the signatures on said document, and it is apparent that the signatures on said document other than the witnesses are not the signatures of individuals signing as sureties; and, applying the liberal rule of interpretation which we arc required to indulg'e in reference to said document, it is apparent that, the mayor and clerk signed in their official capacities, and that it was their intention to sign on behalf of said village as the appellant; and if we assume that they had…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mullins v. WebbOhio Court of Appeals · 1927
  2. Auditorium Realty Co. v. HussmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  3. State v. WehrlyOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API