Legal Opinion
Asbury v. Hugh L. Bates Lodge No. 686
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided November 22, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthews, J.
We have reached the conclusion that judgment should be rendered for the defendant, appellee herein.
The action is to enforce specific performance of a contract alleged to have been entered into by five members of the defendant lodge (its name then being the Fort Hamilton Lodge which was afterwards changed to Hugh L. Bates Lodge), whereby they agreed to convey certain real estate to it, in consideration of the lodge’s agreement to pay $15,000 therefor.
It is sufficient for showing the basis of our decision to point out that the plaintiffs rely upon a resolution of the lodge introduced at its…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Upsal Street Realty Co. v. RubinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Broad St. Nat. Bank of Trenton v. CollierSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
- Woods v. Fifth-Third Union Tr. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Georgia Cane Products Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Stone v. Commonwealth Finance Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1924
3Cited by5 opinions
- Estate of Bogley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
- General Motors Corp. v. Keener Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
- Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary v. MoormanTexas Supreme Court · 1965
- Union Stock Yards Co. v. City of HillsboroOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Union Stock Yards Co. v. City of HillsboroOhio Court of Appeals · 2010