Case Name: HUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUGLE, Defendant-Appellant, and THOMAS, d. b. a. BEMAN THOMAS & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1951-03-05
Citations: 62 Ohio Law Abs. 271
Docket Number: No. 4511
Parties: HUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUGLE, Defendant-Appellant, and THOMAS, d. b. a. BEMAN THOMAS & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 62
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
HUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUGLE, Defendant-Appellant, and THOMAS, d. b. a. BEMAN THOMAS & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Ohio Appeals, Second District, Franklin County.
No. 4511.
Decided March 5, 1951.
Pealer & Reed, Columbus, for appellee.
Wilson & Rector, Columbus, for appellant.

Opinion:
OPINION
By THE COURT.
Submitted on motion of the appellant seeking an order requiring the appellee to comply with a previous demand for permission to make an inspection and copy of certain documents. The appellee has submitted an answering memorandum in which he states it does not appear that he has refused, but that he is willing to comply with the demand at any reasonable time. Therefore, there seems to be no substantial difference between the parties on this question, but for the purpose of the record the motion will be overruled at this time for the reason that no refusal has been established. Sec. 11552 GC.
HORNBECK, PJ, WISEMAN and MILLER, JJ, concur.