Eggers v. Norwood Industrial Loan Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Eggers v. Norwood Industrial Loan Co.

22 N.E.2d 297, 61 Ohio App. 56, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 350, 15 Ohio Op. 70, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 265

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 1938

DocketNo 5511

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 N.E.2d 297 (Eggers v. Norwood Industrial Loan Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eggers v. Norwood Industrial Loan Co., 22 N.E.2d 297, 61 Ohio App. 56, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 350, 15 Ohio Op. 70, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Two points of error are stressed in this *351 appeal: First: That the court erred in refusing defendant the right to cross-examine plaintiff’s attorney regarding his interest in the case. The court erred in so doing. The attorney was on the stand giving evidence in favor of plaintiff and his interest in the case by way of a contingent fee, if such was the basis of his employment, was a proper subject for cross-examination as bearing upon his credibility. Second: The court is further of the opinion that the verdict and judgment are manifestly against the weight of the evidence. We will not comment on the evidence as the case will have to be retried.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law.

BOSS, PJ, HAMILTON & MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Two points of error are stressed in this *351 appeal: First: That the court erred in refusing defendant the right to cross-examine plaintiff’s attorney regarding his interest in the case. The court erred in so doing. The attorney was on the stand giving evidence in favor of plaintiff and his interest in the case by way of a contingent fee, if such was the basis of his employment, was a proper subject for cross-examination as bearing upon his credibility. Second: The court is further of the opinion that the verdict and judgment are manifestly against the weight of the evidence. We will not comment on the evidence as the case will have to be retried.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial and further proceedings according to law.

BOSS, PJ, HAMILTON & MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.E.2d 297, 61 Ohio App. 56, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 350, 15 Ohio Op. 70, 1938 Ohio App. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eggers-v-norwood-industrial-loan-co-ohioctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack