Green Cab Co. v. Balasco

Ohio Court of Appeals

Green Cab Co. v. Balasco

10 Ohio Law. Abs. 347, 1931 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1394

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1931

DocketNo. 11518

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 347 (Green Cab Co. v. Balasco) 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

Green Cab Co. v. Balasco, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 347, 1931 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1394 (Ohio Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTGOMERY, J.

It is the opinion of this court that the trial 'court "did err in directing a verdict, because there was at least a scintilla of evidence, and the plaintiff was entitled to have the issues of facts submitted to and determined by the jury, and for this reason the judgment must be reversed.

It is probably unnecessary for this court to pass upon the second assignment of error, to-wit, the admission of evidence, but because counsel are entitled to have our views upon that proposition, we hold, without passing upon each assignment of error in the admission of evidence, that evidence was [348]*348competent and admissible upon the part of the defendant, which would tend to shew that the written agreement was not intended by the parties to be a binding contract between them, or that it was executed for the purpose pf being exhibited to some third person, and to effect some object other than the agreement between the parties. Of course no evidence is competent which would vary the terms of a written instrument, but that is a different proposition from the one previously indicated and does not affect the rights of the defendant in error to offer evidence for the purpose indicated.

For error in directing a verdict the judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of Cleveland is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court for a new trial. Exceptions may be noted.

SHERICK, PJ, and LEMERT, J, concur.

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

MONTGOMERY, J.

It is the opinion of this court that the trial 'court "did err in directing a verdict, because there was at least a scintilla of evidence, and the plaintiff was entitled to have the issues of facts submitted to and determined by the jury, and for this reason the judgment must be reversed.

It is probably unnecessary for this court to pass upon the second assignment of error, to-wit, the admission of evidence, but because counsel are entitled to have our views upon that proposition, we hold, without passing upon each assignment of error in the admission of evidence, that evidence was [348]*348competent and admissible upon the part of the defendant, which would tend to shew that the written agreement was not intended by the parties to be a binding contract between them, or that it was executed for the purpose pf being exhibited to some third person, and to effect some object other than the agreement between the parties. Of course no evidence is competent which would vary the terms of a written instrument, but that is a different proposition from the one previously indicated and does not affect the rights of the defendant in error to offer evidence for the purpose indicated.

For error in directing a verdict the judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of Cleveland is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court for a new trial. Exceptions may be noted.

SHERICK, PJ, and LEMERT, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio Law. Abs. 347, 1931 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-cab-co-v-balasco-ohioctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack