Hanauer Automobile Co. v. Evans

Hamilton Circuit Court

Hanauer Automobile Co. v. Evans

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 512, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 195

DecidedJanuary 8, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 512 (Hanauer Automobile Co. v. Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanauer Automobile Co. v. Evans, 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 512, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 195 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon the authority of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Duffy v. Queen City Box Company (reported without opinion, 81 Ohio State, reversing 11 C. C.—N. S., 69), the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

For aught that appears, the entire evidence not being set out in the bill of exceptions, we can not say but that there was evidence upon which the court might properly charge as it did in those portions of the general charge complained of by plaintiff in error.-

We do not think the court charged or intended to do so upon the doctrine of " last chance, " but merely called the attention of the jury to the duty that was upon the defendant if he saw the automobile .approaching.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Upon the authority of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Duffy v. Queen City Box Company (reported without opinion, 81 Ohio State, reversing 11 C. C.—N. S., 69), the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

For aught that appears, the entire evidence not being set out in the bill of exceptions, we can not say but that there was evidence upon which the court might properly charge as it did in those portions of the general charge complained of by plaintiff in error.-

We do not think the court charged or intended to do so upon the doctrine of " last chance, " but merely called the attention of the jury to the duty that was upon the defendant if he saw the automobile .approaching.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 512, 1910 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanauer-automobile-co-v-evans-ohcircthamilton-1910.