Pope v. Mudge

Ohio Supreme Court

Pope v. Mudge

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 468

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1923·No. No. 17760·Published

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

1. It is error for the court to direct a verdict against the plaintiff, where, by giving to the evidence the most favorable interpretation toward him which any of the evidence will reasonably warrant, there is some evidence tending to support the allegations o fthe petition.

2. If, in ruling upon a motion to direct a verdict, the court is required to detect the truth from conflicting evidence of the some or different witnesses, the motion should be overruled.

Judgment reversed.

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

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

ROBINSON, J.

1. It is error for the court to direct a verdict against the plaintiff, where, by giving to the evidence the most favorable interpretation toward him which any of the evidence will reasonably warrant, there is some evidence tending to support the allegations o fthe petition.

2. If, in ruling upon a motion to direct a verdict, the court is required to detect the truth from conflicting evidence of the some or different witnesses, the motion should be overruled.

Judgment reversed.

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

Pope v. Mudge, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 468 (Ohio 1923).

Pincite

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 468 (Pope v. Mudge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.