Toledo Edison Co. v. Roberts
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By RICHARDS, J.
A bona fide dispute existed, therefore, between The Toledo Edison Company and Roberts as to the commission to which he was entitled on the two jobs seemed from The Toledo Driving Park, Inc. Clearly, this constituted an unliquidated demand in favor of Roberts and against the company. Each of these parties honestly controverted the claim made by the other. The claim was not a liquidated one, because there was an honest dispute over the amount claimed to be due. It has long been settled that where it is admitted that one of two specified sums is due, but there is a dispute…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Nassoiy v. . TomlinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Corralitos Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Davis v. SolomonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
3Cited by7 opinions
- Morris Skilken & Co. v. Watkins Furniture Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1961
- United States v. Tapor-Ideal Dairy CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
- Lange v. Darling & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Hearst Corp. v. Lauerer, Markin & Gibbs, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Hudak v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.