Legal Opinion

Hoiles v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 2, 1923PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWashburn, J.

This is an error proceeding. The case was submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of facts. It was agreed that the plaintiffs were partners and that the defendant Fidelity & Deposit Company was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Maryland, with principal offices in that state; that on February 15, 1921, plaintiffs commenced an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain county, Ohio, against the other defendant in this action, Philip Cohn, “for the recovery of money,” and at the same time, by proceedings regularly had, procured an order of attachment under…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kreitlein v. FergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Wolf v. StixSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  3. Bluegrass Canning Co. v. StewardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
  4. Doyle v. HeathSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1900
  5. Simon Casady & Co. v. HartzellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Miller v. JohnAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903
  2. United States v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API