Culp v. Hecht

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
• Writing for the Court: SHERICK
• Citation: 43 Ohio App. 430,183 N.E. 437
• Parties: CULP v. HECHT et al.
• Decision Date: 20 September 1932

43 Ohio App. 430
183 N.E. 437

CULP
v.
HECHT et al.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland County.

Sept. 20, 1932.

Action in nature of creditors' bill by Frank S. Culp against R. E. Hecht and others. To review the judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.-[By Editorial Staff.]

Affirmed.

[Ohio App. 431]Culp & Rust, of Mansfield, for plaintiff in error.

Nist & O'Donnell, of Mansfield, for defendants in error.

SHERICK, P. J.

This matter comes into this court on petition in error, the parties stand in the same

[183 N.E. 438]

order held in the court below, and the errors complained of are that the trial court wrongfully sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's petition, and entered judgment against him thereon. The petition reads as follows:

‘On the 19th day of January, 1932, plaintiff by the consideration of the Municipal Court of Mansfield, Ohio, obtained a judgment against the defendant, E. P. Bowden for the sum of One Hundred Dollars with interest thereon at 6% and costs, which is wholly unpaid and unsatisfied and is a valid and subsisting judgment against the said defendant, E. P. Bowden.

‘That the defendant, E. P. Bowden, is not the owner of any property, real or personal, upon which a levy of execution upon such judgment can be made sufficient to satisfy said judgment.

‘Plaintiff further says that said defendant, E. P. Bowden, has a judgment due him from the Mansfield Memorial Tablet Company, and that on the 19th day of January, 1932, he caused a proceedings in aid of execution to be issued on said funds belonging to the defendant, E. P. Bowden, in the hands of the Mansfield Memorial Tablet Company.

‘The plaintiff further says that the defendant, J. Vern Finney, as clerk of the municipal court of Mansfield, Ohio, has or will have in his possession or under his control funds belonging to the said E. P. Bowden, recovered in an action in said court wherein E. P. Bowden was plaintiff and the Mansfield Memorial Tablet Company was defendant.’

The demurrer filed in this case alleged that the trial [Ohio App. 432]court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, and that the petition of the plaintiff did not state facts which show a cause of action. It is the thought of the plaintiff in error that he is unable to procure adequate relief in a court of law and that such relief is only procurable in a court of equity, in an action in the nature of a creditor's bill, as herein filed. We are unable to have this understanding of the...