Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1924

Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.

Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · Decided December 10, 1924 · Mark
3 Ohio Law. Abs. 358

Counsel

Attorneys—Edward H. Brink, Cincinnati, for Phillips Co.; Ross, Jones, and Tebbe, Cincinnati, for Products Co.

Phillips Co. v. White Cliffs Product Co.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.