Mills v. Banks

Ohio Court of Appeals

Mills v. Banks

127 N.E.2d 773, 97 Ohio App. 557, 56 Ohio Op. 486, 1954 Ohio App. LEXIS 729

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 1954

Docket4999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 127 N.E.2d 773 (Mills v. Banks) 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

Mills v. Banks, 127 N.E.2d 773, 97 Ohio App. 557, 56 Ohio Op. 486, 1954 Ohio App. LEXIS 729 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiseman, P. J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Co *558 lumbus, entered in favor of the pláintiffs in an action for damages growing out of an automobile accident.

The assignments of error raise several questions which must be resolved adversely to defendant, appellant herein.

Opon the whole record we fail to find any prejudicial error committed by the trial court in overruling defendant’s motion to strike certain allegations from the petition. If the ruling of the trial court was erroneous, such error would not constitute ground for reversal unless substantial rights are prejudiced thereby. Section 11335, General Code. The plaintiff has failed to show wherein he has been prejudiced. Patterson v. National Cash Register Co., 52 Ohio App., 338, 3 N. E. (2d), 692. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1213, Section 654.

It was not error to permit plaintiff’s driver to testify as to the speed of defendant’s automobile. The qualification of the witness to judge the speed accurately goes to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its competency. State v. Auerbach, 108 Ohio St., 96, 140 N. E., 507.

The plaintiff was a competent witness to testify as to the reasonable market value of her automobile before and after the accident. The owner of personal property has, by reason of the fact of ownership, a sufficient knowledge c its value to be qualified to testify regarding it. Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley, 21 Ohio App., 88, 153 N. E., 86.

We find no assignment of error well made.

Judgment affirmed.

Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.

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

Wiseman, P. J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Co *558 lumbus, entered in favor of the pláintiffs in an action for damages growing out of an automobile accident.

The assignments of error raise several questions which must be resolved adversely to defendant, appellant herein.

Opon the whole record we fail to find any prejudicial error committed by the trial court in overruling defendant’s motion to strike certain allegations from the petition. If the ruling of the trial court was erroneous, such error would not constitute ground for reversal unless substantial rights are prejudiced thereby. Section 11335, General Code. The plaintiff has failed to show wherein he has been prejudiced. Patterson v. National Cash Register Co., 52 Ohio App., 338, 3 N. E. (2d), 692. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1213, Section 654.

It was not error to permit plaintiff’s driver to testify as to the speed of defendant’s automobile. The qualification of the witness to judge the speed accurately goes to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its competency. State v. Auerbach, 108 Ohio St., 96, 140 N. E., 507.

The plaintiff was a competent witness to testify as to the reasonable market value of her automobile before and after the accident. The owner of personal property has, by reason of the fact of ownership, a sufficient knowledge c its value to be qualified to testify regarding it. Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley, 21 Ohio App., 88, 153 N. E., 86.

We find no assignment of error well made.

Judgment affirmed.

Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 N.E.2d 773, 97 Ohio App. 557, 56 Ohio Op. 486, 1954 Ohio App. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-banks-ohioctapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack