Legal Opinion

Nast v. Hurtig & Seamon, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 8, 1927No. 1787PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

Nathan Nast and Max Leitner as executors of the estate of Joseph Nast, deceased, brought an action in the Lucas Common Pleas against note. The court sustained a motion to quash Hurtig & Seamon, Inc., upon a promissory service of summons and thereupon dismissed the petition and entered final judgment. Error was prosecuted on the ground that the court erred in sustaining the motion.

The amended return shows that service was made on John Doe (real name unknown) as managing agent of Hurtig & Seamon, Inc. It was claimed that the return was false in that the person to whom the summons was delivered…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Simon v. ErvinMeigs County Court of Common Pleas · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API