Legal Opinion

Searl v. Cozad

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 1, 1935No. 2551PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*277OPINION

By WASHBURN, J.

It thus appears that the controlling question to be determined by the court is the effect of said dissolution proceedings upon the contract entered into in 1928 for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of her interest in said corporation represented by said common shares of the capital stock of said company,

It is the claim of the defendant that no title to plaintiff’s interest in the assets of said corporation represented by said common stock certificates undelivered at the time of the dissolution of the corporation passed to the defendant under said contract, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peavey v. WellsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  2. Polk-Highlands Counties Land Co. v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
  3. Sutter v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1931

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. ASA Architects, Inc. v. SchlegelOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. ASA Architects, Inc. v. SchlegelOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API