Legal Opinion

Knott v. Moore-Lamb Construction Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1924No. 18277PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The question involved in this error proceeding is of very narrow scope and relates purely to the admission of testimony.

As the parties occupy the same positions here as in the trial court, we shall call the plaintiffs in error the plaintiffs, and the defendant in error the defendant, throughout this opinion.

The plaintiffs introduced evidence in chief tending to show that they had entered into a contrae! with the defendant for the erection of the triplex in question, and that defendant was to receive by way of compensation 15 per cent, of the cost, plus cost, all of which amount was in no…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lytle, Campbell & Co. v. Somers, Fitler & Todd Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. PamNew York Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Molzahn v. ChristensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Standard Plunger Elevator Co. v. BrumleyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1906

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McMaster v. DunnIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Charles A. Burton, Inc. v. DurkeeOhio Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Charles A. Burton, Inc. v. DurkeeOhio Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Welded Construction, L.P. v. The Williams Companies, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API