Arnold v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co.
12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 309, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 272
Opinion
We do not think the evidence objected to -by the plaintiff in error was erroneously admitted on the question of damages, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Arnold v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 309, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 272 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).
12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 309 (Arnold v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.