Thornton v. Mid America Finance & Loan Co.

Thornton, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mid America Finance & Loan Company, Defendant-Appellant

Thornton v. Mid Am. Fin. & Loan Co., 196 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964)

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: February 20, 1964
Docket: No. 26694
Judges: Skeel, Silbert, Artl
Citations: 196 N.E.2d 3328 Ohio App. 2d 22994 Ohio Law. Abs. 54229 Ohio Op. 2d 3121964 Ohio App. LEXIS 438

Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

This appeal comes to this court on questions of law from the Municipal Court of Cleveland on the overruling .of defendant’s motion to tax costs of depositions. The subject costs were incurred by the defendant in the taking of depositions, pursuant to Section 2319.06, Revised Code, and the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum. These subpoenas were directed to plaintiff to produce certain records that were needed to secure information to .enable the defendant to prepare' its defense. During this time four amended petitions were filed and ordered stricken by the court. Upon failure of plaintiff to file a fifth amended petition, the court dismissed the action which negated both the purpose of taking further depositions and the filing and use of same in the case.

The depositions were not taken de bene esse (that is, no anticipation of future need) but were taken to formulate a defense. The effect of the court’s ruling is to saddle the defendant with these substantial eosts, leaving the plaintiff free *543 to refile her cause. We find that the depositions were taken in good faith and were a necessary adjunct to the preparation of defendant’s case. See Farmers Union Fidelity Ins. Co.

v. Farmers Union Co-operative Ins. Co., 147 Neb., 1093 , 26 N. W. (2d), 122 .

The order is, therefore, reversed as contrary to law, and the cause remanded to the Municipal Court of Cleveland with instructions to grant defendant’s motion to tax costs of depositions as costs in the case.

Exceptions. Order see journal.

Skeel, C. J., Silbert and Artl., JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Collins v. York, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2000)Nos. Trial No. A-9604222, Appeal No. C-000125. (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2000)
Vassil v. Able Fence & Guard Rail, Inc.611 N.E.2d 919 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
Jones v. Pierson442 N.E.2d 791 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981)
Kaps Transport, Inc. v. Henry572 P.2d 72 (Alaska 1977)
Hamilton v. Heine3 Ohio App. Unrep. 93 (1990)
Barrett v. Singer Co.396 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio 1979)

Most recent

Collins v. York, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2000)Nos. Trial No. A-9604222, Appeal No. C-000125. (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2000)
Vassil v. Able Fence & Guard Rail, Inc.611 N.E.2d 919 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
Hamilton v. Heine3 Ohio App. Unrep. 93 (1990)
Jones v. Pierson442 N.E.2d 791 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981)
Barrett v. Singer Co.396 N.E.2d 218 (Ohio 1979)
Kaps Transport, Inc. v. Henry572 P.2d 72 (Alaska 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Farmers Union Fid. Ins. v. Farmers Union Co-operative Ins., 26 N.W.2d 122 (Neb. 1947)	14

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list