Ohio Court of Appeals January 6, 1932, No 276 (Alexander v. Cron)
Also known as
United States · · · 06-01-1932
HORNBECK, J.
Much of the evidence is offered to support either the claim of compliance by plaintiff with her contract, as stated, or the defense of non-compliance.
The plaintiff was precluded from testifying and in consequence there is not that continuity of proof which would be expected if she were permitted to take the stand.
Read the full text
This document is published by courtlistener.com.
Moonlit adds the citation network, article-level links and cross-references, which are available to search for free.
Sign in to Moonlit