Cragon v. Harmon
This text of 9 N.E.2d 277 (Cragon v. Harmon) 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.
Opinion
The affidavits which were filed related primarily to the speed of the automobile and its position at or about the time of the accident. Prom an examination of the record we are of the opinion that the evidence tendered as to the speed and position of the automobile was cumulative and therefore insufficient newly discovered evidence to warrant sustaining a motion for new trial on that ground. Kroger, Admr., v. Ryan, 83, Ohio St., 299, 94 N. E., 428; Sheen v. Kubiac, 131 Ohio St., 52, 1 N. E. (2d), 943; Domanski v. Woda, ante, 208, 6 N. E. (2d), 601.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 N.E.2d 277, 132 Ohio St. 508, 132 Ohio St. (N.S.) 508, 8 Ohio Op. 493, 1937 Ohio LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cragon-v-harmon-ohio-1937.