Legal Opinion

Administrators of Cox v. Hill

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1828PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was a bill in chancery, adjourned here for final hearing ’from Pickaway county. The bill was originally filed in the court, of common pleas, and upon a hearing there dismissed. The complainants appealed from the decree of dismissal to the Supreme •Court. The bill charged that the intestate, in his lifetime, together with the defendants, signed a call for the Eev. Wm.

Read the full summary

This was a bill in chancery, adjourned here for final hearing ’from Pickaway county. The bill was originally filed in the court, of common pleas, and upon a hearing there dismissed. The complainants appealed from the decree of dismissal to the Supreme •Court. The bill charged that the intestate, in his lifetime, together with the defendants, signed a call for the Eev. Wm. Jones, a minister of the gospel, to minister for them, and stipulated to pay him a ■ certain annual compensation. That Mr. Jones accepted the call, and officiated for them ^several years. That finally his compensation being…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court :

The complainant comes before us seeking equitable relief against the defendants upon the ground that they are equally liable with himself to pay the money which he has actually been compelled to pay. This liability the defendants controvert. But the complainant contends they are precluded from disputing his claim by *397the joint judgment against them all at law. The first question to be determined is, whether it is competent for the defendants to show that they were not actual parties to, and did not make defense against, the suit at law.

It is not pretended, on either side, but…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Carrington v. HolabirdSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846

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

Powered by the Exa API