Case ID: ohio-cc_20/html/0708-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PERCÜRIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(First Circuit—Hamilton Co., O., Circ’t Court
    Jan. Term, 1899.)
    Before Shearer, Summers and Wilson, JJ.
    fof the Socond Circuit, sitting in the First Circuit.]
    VAN CAMP v. CHENOT.
    
      Want of Reply —Trial of case without objection — Objection comes too late in reviewing court—
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton countv.
    
      E. B. Molony, for Plaintiff in Error.
    
      W. J. Davidson, contra.
   PERCÜRIAM.

No reply was filed to the answer, but without objection the ease 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 Ohio St., 614.

Judgment affirmed.