Legal Opinion
Yin v. Amino Products Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 27, 1943No. 29130PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The first question is: Did the Court: of Appeals commit prejudicial error in entering final judgment for the defendant, Amino Products Company?
The specific error which the Court of Appeals found was that the Court, of Common Pleas should have sustained defendant’s motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of all the evidence. The appellate court, relying upon Gholson v. Savin, 137 Ohio St., 551, 562, 31 N. E. (2d), 858, based its judgment upon the determination that the evidence showed an accord and satisfaction as a matter of law in that the acceptance of the check for less than…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Browning v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.Utah Supreme Court · 1937
- Gholson v. SavinOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- Bellingham Securities Syndicate, Inc. v. Bellingham Coal Mines, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Roth Steel Tube Company v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Lewis v. MathesOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- Matter of Lindell Drop Forge Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 1990
- Dixon v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Richland Builders, Inc. v. ThomeOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.