Ohio Supreme Court, 1831

Sisco v. Cheeney

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 15, 1831 · Wright

1 Wright 9; 1 Ohio Ch. 9

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

O'Rourke v. Sherwin (Pa. 1893)
Robins v. Quinliven (Pa. 1875)
Oyster v. Oyster (Pa. 1882)
Stone v. McMullen (Pa. 1881)
Huber's Appeal (Pa. 1876)
Dodson v. Ball (Pa. 1869)
Powell v. Board of Domestic Missions (Pa. 1865)
Unger v. Unger (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1863)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

WRIGHT, J.

If the tort complained of were by the husband, and wif & jointly, suit should be against the husband alone, for the law intends the whole his act. 2 Com. Dig. 111. If the action *10be against husband and wife jointly for a tort they could not jointly commit, or against the husband alone for the separate act of the wife, and the objection appear on the face of the pleadings, tha 10] *defendant may demur, move in arrest of judgment, or bring his writ of error. 2 Com. Dig. 111. 1 Ch. Pl. 80. So if the action be joint, and the husband he found not guilty, the action fails. Brownl. 209, Yelv. 106. If a verdict is taken, therefore, what good would result to the plaintiff, if we must arrest the judgment upon it?

Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

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