Legal Opinion

STATE Ex BETTMAN v. CANFIELD OIL CO

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 20, 1929No. 9902PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevine, J.

In the brief of counsel for plaintiff,considerable space is devoted to the question whether the facts stated in the defendant’s answer constituted in law or in equity a set-off or counter-claim. Section 11319 GC. defines a setoff.

Section 11317 GC. defines a counterclaim.

If the allegations of defendants answer are to be treated in the nature of a cross-demand, it is to say the least doubtful whether the above section embraces it within its terms. This cross-demand of defendant does not arise out of contract for it has been declared in Peter v. Parkerson, 85 OS. 36, that a tax is not a debt,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Holsman v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  2. City of Muscatine v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
  3. Board of Commissioners v. National Land Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1879

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Anniston Mfg. Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1937
  2. City of Strongsville v. Brookfield Homes, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API