State v. Mandery

Hamilton Circuit Court

State v. Mandery

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 832

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided August 1, 1905·Published

Opinion

JELKE, P. J.

We are of opinion that the trial court erred in directing the verdict at the close of all the testimony.

The issue of fact as to whether the specific property was included in and part of the original canal property of the state should have been submitted to the jury — there was enough testimony to require this.

[833] The court’s view of the law was erroneous and not in accord with State v. Railway, 53 Ohio St. 189 [41 N. E. Rep. 205], et seq.

Judgment reversed.

Giffen a,nd Swing, JJ., concur.

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

JELKE, P. J.

We are of opinion that the trial court erred in directing the verdict at the close of all the testimony.

The issue of fact as to whether the specific property was included in and part of the original canal property of the state should have been submitted to the jury — there was enough testimony to require this.

[833] The court’s view of the law was erroneous and not in accord with State v. Railway, 53 Ohio St. 189 [41 N. E. Rep. 205], et seq.

Judgment reversed.

Giffen a,nd Swing, JJ., concur.

State v. Mandery, 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 832 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 832 (State v. Mandery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.