Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gholson v. Savin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1941No. 28098Published

1DissentZimmerman, J.

When long-recognized and well-established principles of law are applied to the facts of the instant case, an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals is required. In other words, Gholson Js release of Garber under the conditions described did not operate to discharge Savin, and Gholson was not barred from pursuing him further to procure the balance of the amount owed.

The liability of Savin and Garber as lessee and assignee, respectively, was joint and several. Upon default, or breach of the lease, Gholson, as lessor, could have sued both in the same action, or could have sued each…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Parmelee v. LawrenceIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Shriver v. Carlin & Fulton Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
  3. Pennington v. BeveringTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  4. Johnson v. StewartWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Brown v. Pacific Coast AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API