Scheinesohn v. Lemonek

Ohio Circuit Courts

Scheinesohn v. Lemonek

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727

Ohio Circuit Courts·Decided July 3, 1909·Published

Opinion

SMITH, J.

The record does not show that the charge complained of was all that was said to the jury by the court upon the subject in litigation. For aught that appears the errors claimed to exist may have been corrected.

However; the court is of the opinion that in the charge, in its entirety, there is nothing prejudicial to plaintiff in error and the judgment is affirmed.

Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, J.

The record does not show that the charge complained of was all that was said to the jury by the court upon the subject in litigation. For aught that appears the errors claimed to exist may have been corrected.

However; the court is of the opinion that in the charge, in its entirety, there is nothing prejudicial to plaintiff in error and the judgment is affirmed.

Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.

Scheinesohn v. Lemonek, 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727 (Scheinesohn v. Lemonek) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.