Legal Opinion

Canton Implement Co. v. Rauh

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 17, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSherick, J.

The plaintiffs in error, the Canton Implement Company and others, who were the defendants in the trial court, seek a reversal of a final order entered in that court upon their motion to vacate a judgment previously entered therein against them within the term, and to grant a new trial. The judgment sought to be vacated and set aside was upon confession by virtue of a warranty of attorney attached to a promissory note. No ground for vacation appears affirmatively in the record.

The motion as filed recites that the judgment against them was taken without notice and within the term, and that…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Samuel v. Zanesville Bank & Trust Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1930

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brenner v. ShoreOhio Court of Appeals · 1973
  2. Bellows v. BowlusOhio Court of Appeals · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API