Korona Jewelry Music House v. Loveland

Ohio Court of Appeals

Korona Jewelry Music House v. Loveland

157 N.E. 500, 25 Ohio App. 116, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 51, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 646

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 1927

Docket1786

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 157 N.E. 500 (Korona Jewelry Music House v. Loveland) 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

Korona Jewelry Music House v. Loveland, 157 N.E. 500, 25 Ohio App. 116, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 51, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 646 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

This action was originally brought in the Lucas Common Pleas by Theodore C. Loveland and James L. Ricard, d. b. a. The Brenard Mfg. Co. to recover from the Korona Jewelry & Music Co. an amount claimed on certain promissory notes. These notes were given in connection with the purchase of victrolas and the answer and cross-petition of the Korona Co. sets up certain fraudulent representations made by the agent of the Brenard Co. whereby they were induced to make the purchase. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $509.10 in favor of the Brenard Mfg. Co.

This judgment is sought to be reversed upon several grounds of error and the Court of Appeals held:—

1. The Korona Co. contends that the judgment should be reversed because it is against the weight of evidence, but the record discloses that a former verdict was set aside in this case and one verdict having thus been set aside as being contrary to the evidence, this court is powerless to reverse the judgment upon that ground. 101 OS. 316; 113 OS. 113.

2. It is insisted that the judgment must be reversed because of error in the charge of the court to the jury where at the request of the Brenard Co. it charged that fraud is an affirmative defense and the proof to sustain it must be clear and convincing. This is an erroneous statement of the law as far as the degree of proof is concerned, the issue may be decided by a preponderance of the evidence. 26 OS. 2.

3. In another part of the court’s charge, it said to the jury in referring to the degree of proof required “that the jury must be satisfied.” This calls for a higher degree of proof than is required in civil cases. 80 OS. 289.

4. The general charge of the court is further prejudicially erron'eous where' it said that when one discovers fraud, prompt action must be taken in returning the goods. 3 Abs. 307.

5. For the reasons given the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

(Culbert and Williams, JJ., concur.)

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

RICHARDS, J.

This action was originally brought in the Lucas Common Pleas by Theodore C. Loveland and James L. Ricard, d. b. a. The Brenard Mfg. Co. to recover from the Korona Jewelry & Music Co. an amount claimed on certain promissory notes. These notes were given in connection with the purchase of victrolas and the answer and cross-petition of the Korona Co. sets up certain fraudulent representations made by the agent of the Brenard Co. whereby they were induced to make the purchase. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $509.10 in favor of the Brenard Mfg. Co.

This judgment is sought to be reversed upon several grounds of error and the Court of Appeals held:—

1. The Korona Co. contends that the judgment should be reversed because it is against the weight of evidence, but the record discloses that a former verdict was set aside in this case and one verdict having thus been set aside as being contrary to the evidence, this court is powerless to reverse the judgment upon that ground. 101 OS. 316; 113 OS. 113.

2. It is insisted that the judgment must be reversed because of error in the charge of the court to the jury where at the request of the Brenard Co. it charged that fraud is an affirmative defense and the proof to sustain it must be clear and convincing. This is an erroneous statement of the law as far as the degree of proof is concerned, the issue may be decided by a preponderance of the evidence. 26 OS. 2.

3. In another part of the court’s charge, it said to the jury in referring to the degree of proof required “that the jury must be satisfied.” This calls for a higher degree of proof than is required in civil cases. 80 OS. 289.

4. The general charge of the court is further prejudicially erron'eous where' it said that when one discovers fraud, prompt action must be taken in returning the goods. 3 Abs. 307.

5. For the reasons given the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

(Culbert and Williams, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.E. 500, 25 Ohio App. 116, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 51, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korona-jewelry-music-house-v-loveland-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack