Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Cullen

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 28, 1933No. 1162PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*563OPINION

By THE COURT

The controlling statute is §11241 GC which, provides:

*564“An action must be prosecuted in the name oí the real party in interest s *

The language of the statute is conclusive that its requirement is mandatory and it has been so construed, Cox v Traction Co, 32 O.C.A. 187.

Is the plaintiff the real party in interest? At the inception of his action, upon the trial of the case and upon the record until the verdict, it clearly appears that he had an interest in the subject matter of the law suit, which he could assert against the defendant. The jury, by its verdict allowed him but…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Swarthout v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. FrostIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Alaska Pacific Steamship Co. v. Sperry Flour Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Swift & Co. v. Wabash RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  5. Petitt v. MortonOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Barnhill v. BrownOhio Court of Appeals · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API