Dailey v. Chappell
Ohio Circuit Courts
Error to Lucas common pleas court. Cited and commented upon the following authorities. Columbus v. Reinhard, 1 Cire. Dec. 159 (1 R. 289); Jones v. Procter, 24 O. C. C. 80 (3 N. S. 649); Weaver v. Carnahan, 37 Ohio St. 363; Markley v. Mineral City (Vil.), 58 Ohio St. 430 [51 N. E. Rep. 28; 65 Am. St. Rep. 776]; Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St. 195 [20 N. E. Rep. 203]; Tilling-hast v. Craig, 9 Cire. Dee. 459 (17 R. 531) ; Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio 400 [22 Am. Dec. 759].
1Opinion of the CourtWildman, J.
This is a proceeding in error to reverse a judgment rendered in the court below in a suit in which the present defendant in error, Chappell, was plaintiff, and Dailey was defendant. Chappell “brought suit upon promissory notes given in payment of a premium for a life insurance policy. Judgment was first obtained before a justice of the peace, and appeal taken to the court of common pleas. A petition, answer and reply were filed in the court of common pleas, *510but shortly before the filing of the reply by the plaintiff Chappell, a motion was made for judgment on the pleadings, and the court…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wike v. LightnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829