Schram v. Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Schram v. Cincinnati

137 N.E. 868, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 203, 105 Ohio St. 324, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 302

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1922

DocketNo. 17198

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 137 N.E. 868 (Schram v. Cincinnati) 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

Schram v. Cincinnati, 137 N.E. 868, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 203, 105 Ohio St. 324, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 302 (Ohio 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

EPITOMIZED OPINION

MARSHALL, C. J.:

As a result of a change in the grade of a certain street in Cincinnati, in 1909, Schram’s property was injured by interference with ingress and by removing lateral support from the lot. In 1912,- suit was brought for damage on both counts and judgment was rendered for Schram, although the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury to disregard one of the elements as a basis for damage. Schram denies that the causes of action are the same and upon a demurrer to the reply, an agreed statement of facts was drawn up by the parties and submitted to the trial court. Held:

1. When parties to an action submit an agreed statement of facts to the court, after the cause is submitted on a demurred to a reply, the statement of facts will be considered as a special verdict and the court may dispose of the case.

2. When a suit for damages pleads one cause of action involving two elements of damages and the court erroneously rules that one is improper and the jury being so instructed gives judgment for the plaintiff, if no error is prosecuted therefrom, the doctrine of res adjudicata applies.

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

EPITOMIZED OPINION

MARSHALL, C. J.:

As a result of a change in the grade of a certain street in Cincinnati, in 1909, Schram’s property was injured by interference with ingress and by removing lateral support from the lot. In 1912,- suit was brought for damage on both counts and judgment was rendered for Schram, although the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury to disregard one of the elements as a basis for damage. Schram denies that the causes of action are the same and upon a demurrer to the reply, an agreed statement of facts was drawn up by the parties and submitted to the trial court. Held:

1. When parties to an action submit an agreed statement of facts to the court, after the cause is submitted on a demurred to a reply, the statement of facts will be considered as a special verdict and the court may dispose of the case.

2. When a suit for damages pleads one cause of action involving two elements of damages and the court erroneously rules that one is improper and the jury being so instructed gives judgment for the plaintiff, if no error is prosecuted therefrom, the doctrine of res adjudicata applies.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 N.E. 868, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 203, 105 Ohio St. 324, 1922 Ohio LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schram-v-cincinnati-ohio-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack