Wilson v. Buckeye Coal Mining Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Wilson v. Buckeye Coal Mining Co.

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 431

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1961

DocketNo. 36801

StatusPublished

This text of 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 431 (Wilson v. Buckeye Coal Mining Co.) 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

Wilson v. Buckeye Coal Mining Co., 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 431 (Ohio 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant claims error in that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law, in the admission and rejection of evidence, in the charge to the jury, and in the misconduct of counsel. •

A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to defendant. The questions of fact were properly submitted to the jury which saw and heard the witnesses and was the judge of their credibility. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and this court will not disturb the judgment rendered thereon. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Zimmerman, acting C. J., Badcliee, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, J., sitting in the place and stead of Weygandt, C. J. Badcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Zimmerman, J.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant claims error in that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law, in the admission and rejection of evidence, in the charge to the jury, and in the misconduct of counsel. •

A careful examination of the record discloses no error prejudicial to defendant. The questions of fact were properly submitted to the jury which saw and heard the witnesses and was the judge of their credibility. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and this court will not disturb the judgment rendered thereon. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Zimmerman, acting C. J., Badcliee, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Zimmerman, J., sitting in the place and stead of Weygandt, C. J. Badcliee, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Zimmerman, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-buckeye-coal-mining-co-ohio-1961.