Usher, Admr. v. Zuber

Ohio Court of Appeals

Usher, Admr. v. Zuber

182 N.E. 43, 42 Ohio App. 355, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 544, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 437

DecidedFebruary 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 182 N.E. 43 (Usher, Admr. v. Zuber) 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

Usher, Admr. v. Zuber, 182 N.E. 43, 42 Ohio App. 355, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 544, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 437 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, J.

The specifications of error are: Error of the court in ruling on the admission and rejection of evidence; error in the charge of the court; and that the verdict and judgment are against the weight of the evidence.

On the question of the weight of the evidence we are of opinion that there is ample evidence to sustain the common-law marriage, and that as such common-law wife, Hattie Zuber is the surviving widow of Robert Zuber, deceased, and as such is entitled to the fund in question.

There are some errors presented in the record on the admission and rejection of evidence, but, in view of the fact that there is ample evidence, properly admitted, to sustain the verdict, we do not find any prejudicial error resulted from the rejection or admission of evidence.

While the charge of the court is subject to some criticism, we do not find the matter complained of to be prejudicial.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and CUSHING, J, concur,

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