32:T54e,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Stearns v. Hibben Dry Goods Co., 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 553","datePublished":"1908-12-19","legislationDate":"1908-12-19","citation":"Stearns v. Hibben Dry Goods Co., 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 553 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Hamilton 1908)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Hamilton Circuit Court","description":"Read the full text of Stearns v. Hibben Dry Goods Co. (Stearns v. Hibben Dry Goods Co., 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 553 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Hamilton 1908)). This legal opinion, filed in 1908-12-19, from the Hamilton Circuit Court discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/stearns-v-hibben-dry-goods--9310341"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/stearns-v-hibben-dry-goods--9310341","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Stearns v. Hibben Dry Goods Co., Hamilton Circuit Court, Stearns v. Hibben Dry Goods Co., 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 553 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Hamilton 1908)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T443,

The ruling -of the Superior Court in General Term upon a demurrer should, when the case is transferred to this court, be followed unless clearly erroneous.

The petition discloses no misrepresentation by the board of directors upon which the pl-aintiff relied to his prejudice, nor the concealment by them of any fact not recorded in the minutes, which, -on demand, were open to inspection by the plaintiff as a stockholder. - '

Whatever be the nature of the trust created by the resolution of the board of directors -on January 10th, 1898, it terminated on or before June 30th, 1899, more than six years before the commencement of the action.

Although a demand was necessary before beginning the action, the failure to make demand did not suspend the operation of the statute of limitations. Hawk v. Minnick, 19 O. S., 462; Douglass v. Corry, 46 O. S., 349; Townsend v. Eichelberger, 51 O. S., 213.

Judgment affirmed.