
    FUTO v FULTON
    Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co
    No 2486.
    Decided April 29, 1935
    Rockwell, Grant,- Doolittle, Thomas & Buckingham, Akron, for plaintiff in error.
    Brouse, Englebeclc, McDowell, May. & Bierce, Akron, for defendant in error.
   OPINION

By-STEVENS, J.

, Tlie. solo question presented is .this: Asr suming, as we must, that all of the material allegations of the amended answer are true, do the allegations .therein contained state a defense to plaintiff's cause of action?

We arc unanimously of the opinion that Richards v Bank Co., 81 Oh St 348, has no application herein, and that the allegations of said answer do state a defense to the claims of plaintiff’s petition, which, if proven, would defeat plaintiff’s right of recovery. Therefore, the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer of defendant.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

FUNK, PJ, and WASHBURN, J, concur in judgment.  