Legal Opinion

Wall v. Dayton Federation Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1929No. 21717PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The record discloses that the plaintiff -asked for a money judgment for money had and received on alleged misrepresentations and violation of contract. We deem it well settled that, where a petition asks for a money judgment, and pleads facts necessary for establishing such right, and an answer is filed which raises issues of fact upon which either party might demand a jury trial, such cause is a law action and not a chancery case. Section 11379, General Code, recites in part: “Issues of fact arising in actions for the recovery of money only, or specific real or personal property, shall be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Forest City Investment Co. v. HaasOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Murray v. International Steamship Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Davies v. Columbia Gas & Electric Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Ireland v. CheneyOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Channel Dry, Inc. v. HaverOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. J. P. Loomis Coal & Supply Co. v. GarchevOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Liberal Market, Inc. v. Main-Nottingham Investment Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1954

7 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