Case Name: BRUCKMAN v. BRUCKMAN CO
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1938-12-05
Citations: 28 Ohio Law Abs. 338
Docket Number: No 5501
Parties: BRUCKMAN v BRUCKMAN CO
Judges: HAMILTON and MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 28
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
BRUCKMAN v BRUCKMAN CO
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No 5501.
Decided Dec 5, 1938
Graham P. Hunt, Cincinnati, for Appellant.
Peck, Shaffer & Williams, Cincinnati, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
By ROSS, PJ.
The cause here considered is a proceeding from a declaratory judgment.
A demurrer was filed to the amended petition and the same was dismissed, as not stating any cause of action.
An examination of the record causes us to conclude that facts were alleged in the amended petition sufficient to state a cause of action under the statutes providing for a declaratory judgment.
This does not mean that the plaintiff has stated facts entitling him to a declaration of rights as he claims them to be, but it means that the court is required to state what rights, if any, the plaintiff has under the facts stated. If the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under those facts, the court must so state.
The effect of sustaining the demurrer is to find that the plaintiff has not brought himself within the provisions of the declaratory judgment statutes.
The court in the instant case wrote a very comprehensive and, in our opinion, accurate decision upon the merits of the plaintiff's contention, finding against him. If such findings had been incorporated in a judgment after proper pleading, the rights of the plaintiff in the matter would have been properly considered.
We, therefore, conclude that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas should be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law, after the overruling of the demurrer.
HAMILTON and MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.