Legal Opinion

Lowman v. Lowman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1956No. 34747Published

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.

This court has recognized that in certain instances, at least as between the parties thereto (cf. Gross v. Ohio Savings & Trust Co., 116 Ohio St., 230, 156 N. E., 205, with DeCamp v. Hamma, Exr., 29 Ohio St., 467), a contract may be void because of what is referred to as fraud in the factum. Perry v. M. O’Neil & Co., 78 Ohio St., 200, 210, 211, 85 N. E., 41; Picklesimer v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co., 151 Ohio St., 1, 84 N. E. (2d), 214; Meyer v. Meyer, 153 Ohio St., 408, 91 N. E. (2d), 892.

On the record in the instant case, there is no basis for finding and it is not contended that there was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Corbett v. CorbettOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Picklesimer v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Tullis v. TullisOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Meyer v. MeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Mendelson v. MendelsonOhio Supreme Court · 1930

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