Piesekar v. Eschuk

Ohio Court of Appeals

Piesekar v. Eschuk

161 N.E. 355, 27 Ohio App. 439, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 107, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 387

DecidedNovember 14, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 161 N.E. 355 (Piesekar v. Eschuk) 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

Piesekar v. Eschuk, 161 N.E. 355, 27 Ohio App. 439, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 107, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 387 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is takfen, verbatim, from the opinion.

SULLIVAN, -PJ:

r+. annears. bv.. the i record: that when: the plaintiff rested his cpge, a motion was .made *108 for judgment for the defendant, which was ovei ruled by the court. Other witnesses were then called for plaintiff, and subsequently the court permitted plaintiff to dismiss his case without prejudice, and exception was taken thereto by defendant, and, thereupon, defendant proceded with his cross-statement of claim, and it appears, by the record, that before actual judgment was pronounced on the cross-statement of claim, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the same and was overruled by the court, after discussing -the question of contributory negligence and intimating what the judgment might be, but before pro-1 nouncing judgment, as before noted.

Thus the question is whether the court committed error in not giving the defendant the right to dismiss his' cross-statement of claim before judgment', especially when, after a similar request by plaintiff’s attorney, at the con-. elusion of his case, the court allowed the dismissal of the statement of claim. It is our unanimous opinion that there was error prejudicial to the defendant below. Wiswell v. Congregational Church of Cincinnati, 14 OS. 31; Brinkerhoff, Trustee v. Smith, 57 OS. 610; Schram v. Cincinnati, 14 N. P. (N.S.) 109.

. In accordance with these authorities we hold that the court below committed error, and the judgment below is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

(Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)

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

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is takfen, verbatim, from the opinion.

SULLIVAN, -PJ:

r+. annears. bv.. the i record: that when: the plaintiff rested his cpge, a motion was .made *108 for judgment for the defendant, which was ovei ruled by the court. Other witnesses were then called for plaintiff, and subsequently the court permitted plaintiff to dismiss his case without prejudice, and exception was taken thereto by defendant, and, thereupon, defendant proceded with his cross-statement of claim, and it appears, by the record, that before actual judgment was pronounced on the cross-statement of claim, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the same and was overruled by the court, after discussing -the question of contributory negligence and intimating what the judgment might be, but before pro-1 nouncing judgment, as before noted.

Thus the question is whether the court committed error in not giving the defendant the right to dismiss his' cross-statement of claim before judgment', especially when, after a similar request by plaintiff’s attorney, at the con-. elusion of his case, the court allowed the dismissal of the statement of claim. It is our unanimous opinion that there was error prejudicial to the defendant below. Wiswell v. Congregational Church of Cincinnati, 14 OS. 31; Brinkerhoff, Trustee v. Smith, 57 OS. 610; Schram v. Cincinnati, 14 N. P. (N.S.) 109.

. In accordance with these authorities we hold that the court below committed error, and the judgment below is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

(Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.E. 355, 27 Ohio App. 439, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 107, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piesekar-v-eschuk-ohioctapp-1927.