Hamilton v. Ohio Contract Purchase Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. Ohio Contract Purchase Co.

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 760

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hamilton v. Ohio Contract Purchase Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 Ohio App. 445 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1927·Published

Opinion

HOUCK, J.

1. Question whether note sued on was purchased in due course before due, for consideration, and without knowledge of any defects therein, are questions of fact, to be determined by jury.

2. Though evidence offered might cause •different minds to reach different conclusions, when jury has made ultimate findings on conflicting facts, reviewing court cannot reverse judgment as against manifest weight of evidence.

(Shields and Young, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.

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

HOUCK, J.

1. Question whether note sued on was purchased in due course before due, for consideration, and without knowledge of any defects therein, are questions of fact, to be determined by jury.

2. Though evidence offered might cause •different minds to reach different conclusions, when jury has made ultimate findings on conflicting facts, reviewing court cannot reverse judgment as against manifest weight of evidence.

(Shields and Young, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.

Hamilton v. Ohio Contract Purchase Co., 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 760 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 760 (Hamilton v. Ohio Contract Purchase Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.