Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Mereell, Dir.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1933No. 23892PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The relator strenuously maintains that the court should not have granted the motions to make new parties defendant, and files a demurrer to each of the answers and cross-petitions so filed by such new parties defendant.

The answers and cross-petitions of the contractor and the surety who contest the relator’s right to his claimed lien and those of- other lien claimants, are properly filed. Sections 11255 and 12295, General Code.

With these pleadings before us what appeared upon demurrer to the petition to be an uncontested claim,.attacked upon the ground against which this court held unanim…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Redfield v. WindomSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Brown v. . TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  3. Bayard v. United States Ex Rel. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  4. Sanderson v. Salmon River Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lee Turzillo Contracting Co. v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State Ex Rel. Apple v. PenceOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  3. State Ex Rel. Milton Banking Co. v. MerrellOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  4. State Ex Rel. Walters v. City of BellevueOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
  5. Kluth v. AndrusOhio Supreme Court · 1952

1 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