State, Ex Rel. Heck v. Sucher
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This is an action in quo warranto. The summons issued in the case required the respondent to answer on the third Saturday after the return day rather than within thirty days after the return •day as required by Section 12315, General Code. The respondent filed a motion to quash the summons and the relator filed a motion for an order to amend the summons by correcting the date within which the respondent would be required to answer to conform to the statutory requirements.
Counsel for respondent contend that the summons cannot be amended but that if the court orders an amendment,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Illinois Central Railroad v. RothschildAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907
- Smith v. Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1970
- Stauffer v. McLain Trucking, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1948
- East St. Louis Railway Co. v. GrayAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907