Pancero v. Pancero

Ohio Court of Appeals

Pancero v. Pancero

153 N.E. 146, 21 Ohio App. 427, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 20, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 931, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 509

DecidedApril 12, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 153 N.E. 146 (Pancero v. Pancero) 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

Pancero v. Pancero, 153 N.E. 146, 21 Ohio App. 427, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 20, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 931, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 509 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Louise Pancero who was plaintiff below, brought suit against Charles Pancero on three causes of action for money. The substance of the petition was that one Lester Pancero was -the agent and manager of the butcher business of Charles Pancero, with authority to purchase supplies, conduct the business, collect accounts, borrow money for the business; and that in pursuance thereof he borrowed $350 from the said Louise Pan-cero and same has not been paid.

The defense, at the close of Louise Pancero’s testimony, moved for a directed verdict and same was rendered by the Hamilton Common Pleas. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The instructed verdict could only be correct if there was no evidence tending’ to sustain the material allegations of the petition.

2. The record discloses that the evidence tends to support the allegations of the petition in its essential parts.

3. The question presented as to whether or not Lester Pancero was the manager and agent of Charles Pancero, his power to borrow money, whether it was done at defendant’s instance were all questions that should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions.

Judgment therefore reversed.

(Buchwalter, PJ., Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur.)

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