Bantz v. Rover
Ohio Circuit Courts
Error to common pleas court. Cited and commented upon by the following authorities: 1 Bates, Pleading p. 162; Cincinnati, H. & D. By. v. Bailey, 70 Ohio St. 88 [70 N. E. Rep. 900] ; Conn v. Rhodes, 26 Ohio St. 644; Venneman v. Sievering, 9 Dec. Re. 459 (14 Bull. 5); Ashly v. Wright, 19 Ohio St. 291; First Nat. Bank v. Reed, 31 Ohio St. 435; Boyles v.- Eoyt, 2 Dee. Re. 376 (2 W. L. M. 548); Phillips v. LeJune, 25 O. C. C. 107 (1 N. S. 616) ; White v. Freese, 13 Dee.
Read the full summary
Error to common pleas court. Cited and commented upon by the following authorities: 1 Bates, Pleading p. 162; Cincinnati, H. & D. By. v. Bailey, 70 Ohio St. 88 [70 N. E. Rep. 900] ; Conn v. Rhodes, 26 Ohio St. 644; Venneman v. Sievering, 9 Dec. Re. 459 (14 Bull. 5); Ashly v. Wright, 19 Ohio St. 291; First Nat. Bank v. Reed, 31 Ohio St. 435; Boyles v.- Eoyt, 2 Dee. Re. 376 (2 W. L. M. 548); Phillips v. LeJune, 25 O. C. C. 107 (1 N. S. 616) ; White v. Freese, 13 Dee. Re. 749 (2 C. S. C. 30) ; Bragg v. Bickford, 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 21; Meade v. Thorne, 2 Dec. Re. 289 (2 W.L. M. 312) ; Kerns v.…
1Opinion of the CourtSwing, J.
We think it was error in the court to dismiss the answer and cross petition of Adam Bantz on the ground that the “answer and cross petition is not verified by the signature of the attorney and does not show the name or seal of the notary public before whom it purports to have been signed by' Adam Bantz.” Under R. S. 5114 (Gen. Code 11863) the court should have permitted the pleading to have been amended. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. v. Bailey, 70 Ohio St. 88 [70 N. E. Rep. 900].
We are further of the opinion that the court should have sustained the demurrer to the original petition. But as no error…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Corry v. FlemingOhio Supreme Court · 1876