Meyers v. Pearce

Hamilton Circuit Court

Meyers v. Pearce

13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 661

DecidedJuly 1, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 661 (Meyers v. Pearce) 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

Meyers v. Pearce, 13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 661 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appears from the record that Harvey Meyers rendered services to Mrs. Pearce, of great ability, courage and value, and that the same were successful, and if it were a question o'f quantum meruit the amount of the alleged contract would be inadequate and the amount retained by him reasonable. But that is a matter with which we are not concerned if there was a subsisting contract between Mr. Meyers and Mrs. Pearce.

Mrs. Pearce says Mr. Meyers undertook to do this work for $500.

Mr. Meyers says that the $500 contract was subsequently by agreement abrogated. The burden of showing this change is on Mr. Meyers, and it is to the credit and dignity of the legal profession that the measure of proof required by the law is strict. It may even be that Mr. Meyers is right in this contention, but it is better that he should fail for want of sufficient proof than that there should be any relaxation in this regard. However this may be, this issue was fairly submitted to the jury under a proper charge and we cannot say that the verdict is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to call for a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appears from the record that Harvey Meyers rendered services to Mrs. Pearce, of great ability, courage and value, and that the same were successful, and if it were a question o'f quantum meruit the amount of the alleged contract would be inadequate and the amount retained by him reasonable. But that is a matter with which we are not concerned if there was a subsisting contract between Mr. Meyers and Mrs. Pearce.

Mrs. Pearce says Mr. Meyers undertook to do this work for $500.

Mr. Meyers says that the $500 contract was subsequently by agreement abrogated. The burden of showing this change is on Mr. Meyers, and it is to the credit and dignity of the legal profession that the measure of proof required by the law is strict. It may even be that Mr. Meyers is right in this contention, but it is better that he should fail for want of sufficient proof than that there should be any relaxation in this regard. However this may be, this issue was fairly submitted to the jury under a proper charge and we cannot say that the verdict is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to call for a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Ohio C.C. Dec. 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-pearce-ohcircthamilton-1902.