Tennison v. Dreifus

Ohio Court of Appeals

Tennison v. Dreifus

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 550

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 1927

DocketNo. 3020

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 550 (Tennison v. Dreifus) 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

Tennison v. Dreifus, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 550 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, PJ.

Alfred F. Tennison brought suit against Charles I. Dreifus for commission claimed to have been earned in the sale of real estate. At close of plaintiff’s testimony defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court in sustaining the motion said, “The evidence discloses beyond a question of doubt in the Court’s mind that the plaintiff in this case abandoned the contract and instead of demanding his commission from Dreifus, he gave Tusch (the purchaser) $25 to release the contract and kept the $75 and immediately proceeded to secure other purchasers and to attempt to enter into another contract with this defendant,” etc.

Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:—

1. Plaintiff’s testimony and exhibits present some evidence tending to establish his claim to recover.

2. The Court in passing upon the motion for a directed verdict made a statement to the effect that the evidence “discloses beyond a question of doubt in the court’s mind that plaintiff in this case abandoned the contract,” etc.

3. The jury might or might not agree with the court as to the evidence, and the case should have been submitted to it.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

(Cushing and Buchwalter, JJ., concur).

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

HAMILTON, PJ.

Alfred F. Tennison brought suit against Charles I. Dreifus for commission claimed to have been earned in the sale of real estate. At close of plaintiff’s testimony defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court in sustaining the motion said, “The evidence discloses beyond a question of doubt in the Court’s mind that the plaintiff in this case abandoned the contract and instead of demanding his commission from Dreifus, he gave Tusch (the purchaser) $25 to release the contract and kept the $75 and immediately proceeded to secure other purchasers and to attempt to enter into another contract with this defendant,” etc.

Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:—

1. Plaintiff’s testimony and exhibits present some evidence tending to establish his claim to recover.

2. The Court in passing upon the motion for a directed verdict made a statement to the effect that the evidence “discloses beyond a question of doubt in the court’s mind that plaintiff in this case abandoned the contract,” etc.

3. The jury might or might not agree with the court as to the evidence, and the case should have been submitted to it.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

(Cushing and Buchwalter, JJ., concur).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tennison-v-dreifus-ohioctapp-1927.