D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co.
United States Supreme Court
405 U.S. 174, 92 S.Ct. 775 (1972)
- Written by John Waller, JD
Facts
D.H. Overmyer Co. (Overmyer) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Frick Co. (defendant). The contract required Overmyer to make regular payments to Frick for Frick’s installment of an automatic refrigeration system in Overmyer’s Ohio warehouse. After the installation was complete, Overmyer fell behind in its payments, and the parties negotiated a new agreement that included the execution of a note in which Overmyer consented in advance to Frick’s obtaining a judgment for the amount due on the note without providing Overmyer the opportunity to present a defense. Overmyer received adequate consideration for the note, and the note was the product of negotiations carried on by corporate parties with the advice of competent counsel. Thereafter, Overmyer ceased to make the required payments, asserting a breach of the original contract by Frick. Frick obtained a judgment for the debt on the note in an Ohio court. Overmyer was not given notice or the opportunity to be heard. Overmyer moved to vacate the judgment. The Ohio court denied Overmyer’s motion, and the state appellate courts affirmed. Overmyer appealed, arguing that the court’s judgment on the note was unconstitutional because he was not given notice or the opportunity to be heard.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.