WHITE v. HOLLAND FURNACE CO.

No. 3847.

31 F.Supp. 32 (1939)

WHITE v. HOLLAND FURNACE CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. Ohio, E. D.

On Rehearing December 27, 1939.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Pealer & Tuttle, of Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Arnold, Wright, Purpus & Harlor, of Columbus, Ohio, for defendant.


UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the motion of the plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendant has answered plaintiff's original petition by denial and a cross-claim to which plaintiff has replied.

The objection of the defendant is that the second cause of action in the amended complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant's contention is that the period of limitation began to run from the date of...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases