Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co.

158 N.E. 8, 116 Ohio St. 744, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 744, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 251, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 284

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 1927

Docket20331

StatusPublished

This text of 158 N.E. 8 (Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co., 158 N.E. 8, 116 Ohio St. 744, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 744, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 251, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 284 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

It appearing from the record that one of the grounds of reversal of the judgment of the trial court was “that the verdict and judgment are not sustained by sufficient evidence and are contrary to law,” and it further appearing that the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court by.reducing the amount thereof to the sum of one dollar, and affirming the judgment as thus modified, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of affirmance by the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed; and since it appears further that one of the grounds of reversal of the judgment of the trial court was that the verdict and judgment are not sustained by sufficient evidence, the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the common pleas court upon said ground is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

It appearing from the record that one of the grounds of reversal of the judgment of the trial court was “that the verdict and judgment are not sustained by sufficient evidence and are contrary to law,” and it further appearing that the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court by.reducing the amount thereof to the sum of one dollar, and affirming the judgment as thus modified, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of affirmance by the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed; and since it appears further that one of the grounds of reversal of the judgment of the trial court was that the verdict and judgment are not sustained by sufficient evidence, the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the common pleas court upon said ground is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E. 8, 116 Ohio St. 744, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 744, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 251, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mouse-v-central-savings-trust-co-ohio-1927.