Case Name: PHILLIPS CO. v. WHITE CLIFFS PRODUCT CO.
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-12-10
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 358
Docket Number: No. 59135
Parties: PHILLIPS CO. v. WHITE CLIFFS PRODUCT CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.