Goodall v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Goodall v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co.

91 Ohio St. (N.S.) 424

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 9, 1915

DocketNo. 14218

StatusPublished

This text of 91 Ohio St. (N.S.) 424 (Goodall v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co.) 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

Goodall v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co., 91 Ohio St. (N.S.) 424 (Ohio 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed.

Cause remanded for new trial. See journal entry:

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals in so far as final judgment is rendered in favor of The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Company and against Charles W. Goodall, dismissing his petition be, and the same hereby is, reversed.

It appearing further that the judgment of the court of appeals necessarily involves the weight of evidence the judgment of said court reversing the judgment of the superior court of Cincinnati is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to said superior court of Cincinnati for further proceedings and trial according to law.

Nichols, C. J., Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker, Newman, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed.

Cause remanded for new trial. See journal entry:

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals in so far as final judgment is rendered in favor of The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Company and against Charles W. Goodall, dismissing his petition be, and the same hereby is, reversed.

It appearing further that the judgment of the court of appeals necessarily involves the weight of evidence the judgment of said court reversing the judgment of the superior court of Cincinnati is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to said superior court of Cincinnati for further proceedings and trial according to law.

Nichols, C. J., Johnson, Donahue, Wanamaker, Newman, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 Ohio St. (N.S.) 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodall-v-cincinnati-hamilton-dayton-railway-co-ohio-1915.