Borton v. Earhart
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
The sole question before this court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing appellant’s appeal on questions of law and fact, on the ground that the action is not one in chancery but an action at law.
Whether an action is legal or equitable in character must be determined by the nature of “plaintiff’s primary demand and the ground of the action as set out in the pleadings. Taylor v. Brown, 92 Ohio St., 287, 110 N. E., 739; Hummer v. Parsons, 111 Ohio St., 595, 146 N. E., 62; Lust v. Farmers’ Bank & Savings Co., 114 Ohio St., 312, 151 N. E., 189. In the case at bar the plaintiff…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Forest City Investment Co. v. HaasOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Nordin v. CoultonOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- La Bounty v. BrumbackOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Hummer v. ParsonsOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Lust v. Farmers' Bank & Savings Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of Toledo v. CrewsOhio Court of Appeals · 1962
- Mories v. HendyOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
- Dawes v. MurphyOhio Court of Appeals · 1963
- Roper v. No-Leak Roofing & Paint Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1953
- Connelly v. BalkwillOhio Supreme Court · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.