Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

CHAMBERLAIN v. HOSFORD, 139 Ohio St. 628 (1942)

41 N.E.2d 708

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1942-04-01
Topic
general

CHAMBERLAIN v. HOSFORD, 139 Ohio St. 628 (1942) 41 N.E.2d 708 CHAMBERLAIN, APPELLANT v. HOSFORD, APPELLEE. No. 29041Supreme Court of Ohio. Decided April 1, 1942.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CHAMBERLAIN v. HOSFORD, 139 Ohio St. 628 (1942). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CHAMBERLAIN v. HOSFORD,139 Ohio St. 628(1942)
41 N.E.2d 708
CHAMBERLAIN, APPELLANT v. HOSFORD, APPELLEE.
No. 29041
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided April 1, 1942.
Supreme Court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutionalquestion involved — Statute of limitations — Section 11222,General Code — Oral contract with bond dealer to investfunds on percentage of profits — Action to recover allegedexcess profits — Appeal on law and fact — Commissionerappointed to take testimony — Failure of Court of Appeals torule on admissibility of evidence — Section 16, Article I,Constitution — ArticleXIV, Amendments, U.S. Constitution.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.
Messrs. Cull FullerandMr. James Easly, for appellant.Messrs. Miller Hornbeck, for appellee.
It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., TURNER, WILLIAMS, MATTHIAS, HART and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.
BETTMAN, J., not participating.
Page 629