Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_10/html/0819-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PLEADING AND PRACTICE — ERROR.
    [Hamilton Circuit Court,
    1899.]
    ■ Shearer, Summers, and Wilson, JJ.
    (Of the Second Circuit, sitting in the First Circuit.)
    Merriam Van Camp v. Rosa Chenot.
    Objection That Will Not be Heard foe the First Time in Reviewing Court.
    Where, in the trial court, no reply to the answer was filed, but without objection the case was treated as though issue was properly joined, an objection cannot be heard for the first time in the reviewing court, no matter whether reply was necessary or not.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    E. B. Molony, for plaintiff in error.
    W. J. Davidson, contra.
    
   PER Curiam.

No reply was filed to the answer, but without objection the case was treated as though issue; had been joined. The reviewing court holds •that objection cannot now be heard for the first time in that behalf, and this independently of the question whether- a reply was necessary. Lovell v. Wentworth, 39 O. S., 614.

Judgment affirmed.