Legal Opinion

Zeigler Milling Co. v. Denman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1946No. 424PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSherick, P. J.

This appeal presents two questions. The first question' concerns the admissibility in evidence of a check stub offered as corroborative evidence of the issuance and delivery of a check given to plaintiff’s agent in payment of ah account which is the basis of this action. The check stub was denied admission. Of this ruling defendant, appellant herein, complains.

It is agreed that the early law of Ohio denied' admissibility under the rule that self-serving declarations are not permissible in evidence. Defendant, however, urges that such a business record is now competent under Section 12102-23,…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dickson, an Infant v. GastlOhio Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. Eikenberry v. McFallOhio Court of Appeals · 1941

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hytha v. SchwendemanOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Mid-America Tire v. PTZ TradingOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Dunkle v. Standard Life & Accident Ins.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1961
  5. Robinson-Lloyds, Ltd. v. Department of Liquor ControlOhio Court of Appeals · 1952

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

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

Powered by the Exa API