TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Hartoon v. Sweeney

STATE, ex HARTOON et, Relators v. SWEENEY, Sec. of State

State ex rel. Hartoon v. Sweeney, 105 N.E.2d 660 (Ohio Ct. App. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 14, 1950
Docket
No. 4456
Judges
Hornbeck, Miller, Wiseman
Citations
105 N.E.2d 66061 Ohio Law. Abs. 5611950 Ohio App. LEXIS 825

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION By THE COURT.

Submitted on motion of the respondent seeking an order making the International Electrical Local 724 Building Corporation, a corporation not for profit organized and incorporated under the laws of Ohio, whose principal office is located at Lima, Ohio, a party respondent to this action for the reason that it has an interest in the controversy adverse to the relators and is a necessary party hereto and this action cannot be completely determined and settled without its presence herein.

*562

*561 The petition in this action seeks to compel the Secretary of State to cancel and remove from the records of his office the Certificate of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of IE Local 724 Building Corporation. The relators appear to be challenging the rights of the persons submitting said Certificate of Amendment to act for the corporation then existing. This respondent is contending that the Certificate of Amendment was presented in proper and due form to the Secretary of State who filed the same pursuant to the laws governing his official duties. It would therefore appear that the persons who submitted the said Certificate of Amendment have an interest in the controversy adverse to that of the relators, and the addition of new parties under *562 such circumstances is permissible under §11255 GC. In State, ex rel. Nixon v. Merrill, 127 Oh St 72 the Court held that any person may be made a defendant in a mandamus action who has or claims to have an interest in the controversy adverse to the plaintiff.

The motion will therefore be sustained.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1978: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Lang378 N.E.2d 1106 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)

Most recent

  1. People v. Lang378 N.E.2d 1106 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list