Legal Opinion

Rundell, Exr. v. Batch

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 1, 1931No. 2560PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

It is obvious that the pleading sought to be filed, so far as it contained matter not in the original intervening petition, set forth a claim against third parties ib favor of the dissolved corporation which should have been brought by the receiver. It is claimed, however, by plaintiffs in error that the receiver is unfriendly toward the bringing of the action and that it was sought by the new pleading to recover for the dissolved corporation and the fund, when recovered, would of course go to the receiver. It is evident that the receiver might find it necessary to bring many actions in…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cuyahoga Cty. Case Mgt. v. Clark Indus. Insulation Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021
  2. In Re Dissolution of Standard Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API