Legal Opinion

Seibert v. Herring

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1929No. 21536PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The plaintiff in error sets up as his principal assignment of error the rendering of judgment in favor of Herring for the sum of $1,200, with interest thereon, claiming that the value of the truck was a question of fact upon which he should have been allowed to introduce evidence prior to the rendering of judgment.

With this conclusion we are in accord. The case was submitted upon demurrer, and the admissions of fact made by counsel for the receiver were made for the purpose of the legal argument upon demurrer. Hence the facts set forth in the cross-petition and demurrer were not admitted by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Grover Irrigation & Land Co. v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir & Irrigation Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Sprague v. New York & New England RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. Ohio Casualty Ins.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Zechar v. All American Casualty Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1961
  3. Vintilla v. DobreaOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
  4. Rupel v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API