Hauss v. Koehler

Ohio Circuit Courts

Hauss v. Koehler

19 Ohio C.C. 637

DecidedJanuary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. 637 (Hauss v. Koehler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hauss v. Koehler, 19 Ohio C.C. 637 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $53 for services, and the defendant a verdict for $55 on cross-petition for injury to property. The trial judge deducted the former from the latter verdict, and gave judgment for the defendant for $2.

The reviewing court holds that the two verdicts were not inconsistent, and that the irregularity in the form of the verdict was not prejudicial, and was one, the judge would, no doubt, have corrected had his attention been called to it before the jury were discharged. The court was therefore authorized to make the subtraction and enter judgment as was done. Brainard et al. v. Lane, 26 Ohio St., 632.

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

By the Court.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $53 for services, and the defendant a verdict for $55 on cross-petition for injury to property. The trial judge deducted the former from the latter verdict, and gave judgment for the defendant for $2.

The reviewing court holds that the two verdicts were not inconsistent, and that the irregularity in the form of the verdict was not prejudicial, and was one, the judge would, no doubt, have corrected had his attention been called to it before the jury were discharged. The court was therefore authorized to make the subtraction and enter judgment as was done. Brainard et al. v. Lane, 26 Ohio St., 632.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauss-v-koehler-ohiocirct-1899.