Foresman v. Haag
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. Reserved in tbe District Court. This case was decided at tbe last term, and tbe decision is reported in 36 Ohio St. 102. The judgment in tbe case not having been entered, it now comes before the court for tbe entry of sucb judgment.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. Reserved in tbe District Court. This case was decided at tbe last term, and tbe decision is reported in 36 Ohio St. 102. The judgment in tbe case not having been entered, it now comes before the court for tbe entry of sucb judgment. On the oral argument of tbe case, tbe death of tbe defendant in error was suggested by counsel who bad represented tbe defendant in error, and it was agreed that tbe argument of tbe casé should not be delayed on account of sucb death. The case was accordingly argued and submitted to tbe court, upon tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
"White, J.
The main questions now before the court are: 1. Whether the proceedings in error can be revived against the legal representatives of the defendant in error, by conditional order—the mode adopted by the plaintiffs in error : and, 2. If this question is answered in the affirmative, whether the revivor can be had in this court, or must the case be remanded to the district court for the purpose.
The first question is answered in the affirmative by Black v. Hill (29 Ohio St. 86), and Pavey v. Pavey, (30 Ohio St. 600). In these cases the court applied the power given by section 39 of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Green v. WatkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Ray v. DoughtyIndiana Supreme Court · 1835
- Rogers v. PatersonNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Black v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- Schuchardt v. RemiersNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1865