Grau v. Kaiser

Ohio Court of Appeals

Grau v. Kaiser

184 N.E. 245, 44 Ohio App. 214, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 194, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 349

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1932

DocketNo 4111

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.E. 245 (Grau v. Kaiser) 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

Grau v. Kaiser, 184 N.E. 245, 44 Ohio App. 214, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 194, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 349 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, PJ.

It is claimed by plaintiff in error that his motion for judgment in conformity to *195 the findings of fact by the jury should have been granted. This contention raises the question of whether the jury rendered its verdict upon assignments of negligence not alleged in the third amended petition, under which the issues were made.

Taking the categorical negatives of the jury, the allegations of negligence in the third amended petition are eliminated as proximate causes of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The addenda to the negatives are meaningless in the absence of a bill of exceptions possibly furnishing definition of a “ladder-jack”, or definitions secured from ordinary dictionaries indicating the common use of the term. Reference to the dictionaries in common use show no term “ladder-jack”. We have no idea of its meaning.

Under the provisions of §11420-18 GC, the motion for judgment should have been granted. The duty to grant the motion under such circumstances is mandatory. Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v O’Day, Admx., 123 Oh St, 638.

The judgment is reversed,'and judgment is entered here for the plaintiff in error.

HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.

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

ROSS, PJ.

It is claimed by plaintiff in error that his motion for judgment in conformity to *195 the findings of fact by the jury should have been granted. This contention raises the question of whether the jury rendered its verdict upon assignments of negligence not alleged in the third amended petition, under which the issues were made.

Taking the categorical negatives of the jury, the allegations of negligence in the third amended petition are eliminated as proximate causes of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The addenda to the negatives are meaningless in the absence of a bill of exceptions possibly furnishing definition of a “ladder-jack”, or definitions secured from ordinary dictionaries indicating the common use of the term. Reference to the dictionaries in common use show no term “ladder-jack”. We have no idea of its meaning.

Under the provisions of §11420-18 GC, the motion for judgment should have been granted. The duty to grant the motion under such circumstances is mandatory. Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v O’Day, Admx., 123 Oh St, 638.

The judgment is reversed,'and judgment is entered here for the plaintiff in error.

HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.E. 245, 44 Ohio App. 214, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 194, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grau-v-kaiser-ohioctapp-1932.