City of Dayton v. Goldsberry

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Dayton v. Goldsberry

84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 454

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 1911

DocketNo. 11776

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 454 (City of Dayton v. Goldsberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Dayton v. Goldsberry, 84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 454 (Ohio 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

This court is of opinion that the evidence offered at the trial with respect to plaintiff forgetting about the condition of the timbers of the bridge was properly excluded, and that the circuit court in holding that ruling to be error was in itself in error as to that matter. But this court being further of opinion that the cause should have [455]*455been submitted by the court of common pleas to the jury, and that that court therefore erred in sustaining the motion to direct a verdict for all the defendants, the judgment of the circuit court reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas and remanding the cause to that court for further proceedings with respect to the claim of the plaintiff below against the city of Dayton is affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This court is of opinion that the evidence offered at the trial with respect to plaintiff forgetting about the condition of the timbers of the bridge was properly excluded, and that the circuit court in holding that ruling to be error was in itself in error as to that matter. But this court being further of opinion that the cause should have [455]*455been submitted by the court of common pleas to the jury, and that that court therefore erred in sustaining the motion to direct a verdict for all the defendants, the judgment of the circuit court reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas and remanding the cause to that court for further proceedings with respect to the claim of the plaintiff below against the city of Dayton is affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Ohio St. (N.S.) 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-dayton-v-goldsberry-ohio-1911.