Legal Opinion

Portsmouth Gas Co. v. Maddox

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 26, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlosser, J.

The defendant alleges several errors occurring in the trial in the Court of Common Pleas which he claims are prejudicial and sufficient to justify a reversal. It is first claimed that the petition is defective ,and insufficient in that it does not allege that the gas company had notice of the defective pipes or the escape of gas therefrom; that these allegations are essential and necessary to state a cause of action, and that the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained. We can not agree with this contention. The petition alleges that the defendant had insufficient and defective…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Springfield Gas Co. v. HermanOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  2. Wilson, Jr. v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Lone Star Gas Co. v. EckelCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
  4. Eberle v. Connecticut Light and Power Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1947
  5. Skufca v. East Ohio Gas Co.City of Cleveland Municipal Court · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API