Case ID: ohio-law-abs_3/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MARK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 539
    PHILLIPS CO. v. WHITE CLIFFS PRODUCT CO.
    Superior Court of Cincinnati
    No. 59135.
    Decided Dec. 10, 1924.
    677. JUDGMENTS AND DECREES— court, where there is no meritorious defense Summary judgment may be rendered by the court, where there is no meritorious defense and evidence is clear and convincing.
    Attorneys—Edward H. Brink, Cincinnati, for Phillips Co.; Ross, Jones, and Tebbe, Cincinnati, for Products Co.
   MARK, J.

The Victor L. Phillips Co. sought to recover from the Krippendorf-Tuttle White Cliffs Product Co. on three notes. The Products Go. answered by admitting corporate capacity and denying the allegations in the petition of the Phillips Co. A motion was made by the Phillips Co. to strike said answer from the files, declaring it to be a pure sham, interposed for the purpose of delay; and moved for a summary judgment on the ground that there was no meritorious defense.

The court in striking the answer from the files and in granting the motion for summary judgment, said:

1. If not for the power of the court to grant a summary judgment, where there is no scintilla of defense, a debtor could delay the collection of a just claim by simply filing a formal answer, no matter how frivolous it might be.

2. A trial court has had the power to do this, since the rule was laid down in White v. Calhoun, 82 OS. 401.