Hnizdil v. White Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | 31656. |
| Citation | 152 Ohio St. 1,87 N.E.2d 94 |
| Parties | v. WHITE MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under Section 6 of Article IV of the Constitution, as amended November 7, 1944, a majority of the Court of Appeals may reverse a judgment of the Common Pleas Court on the weight of the evidence except where such judgment was entered on the verdict of a jury.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.
On July 30, 1947, plaintiff filed a petition on appeal in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County from an order of the Industrial Commission. That order had disallowed his claim for compensation for disability on the ground that it was not due to or the result of an injury received during the course of or arising out of his employment by defendant a self-insuring employer.
The cause was heard by the court, a jury having been waived. [1]
The court found for defendant and rendered judgment on such finding.
Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which, with one judge dissenting, reversed that judgment as being manifestly against the weight of the evidence but found that there was no other error.
M B. & H. H. Johnson and Chester W. Lindsay, Cleveland, for appellant.
Abram M. Kaplan, Cleveland, for appellee.
Defendant's brief states that the record presents two questions for this court. As to the first, we agree with defendant that there was evidence to support the findings of the Common Pleas Court that plaintiff did not sustain an injury in the course of and arising out of his employment with defendant.
The other question is whether two of the three judges of the Court of Appeals could reverse the judgment of the Common Pleas Court on the sole ground that it was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
This depends upon a construction of Section 6 of Article IV of the Constitution, as amended November 7, 1944. The pertinent part of that section reads:
(Emphasis ours.)
The judgment in the instant case was not 'entered on the verdict of the jury' since the record discloses that the parties waived a jury and the cause was heard by the court. Giving the language used by the people in this constitutional provision its ordinary meaning, there was clearly nothing to prohibit two members of the Court of Appeals from entering the judgment which they rendered in the instant case. On the contrary, that language clearly appears to authorize two such members to pronounce a decision or enter a judgment of the kind which was rendered in the instant case.
Defendant, however, cites the first paragraph of the syllabus in Boedker v. Warren E. Richards Co., 124 Ohio St. 12, 176 N.E. 660, which reads:
'Where an action at law is submitted to the court, trial by jury being waived by the parties, the finding of the court is the equivalent of a verdict of a jury and is to be governed by all statutes relating to verdicts.'
Defendant then argues that since the finding of a court on a trial where a jury has been waived 'is the equivalent of a verdict of a jury,' it should be so regarded in construing the above-quoted language of the constitutional provision.
In the Boedker case a jury was waived and the court found generally for the plaintiff and rendered judgment on that finding. Two days later, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial which was not overruled for almost a year. It was held that the statutory period for filing a petition in error did not begin to run until the motion for a new trial was overruled.
In so holding the court pointed out that, where a jury verdict was rendered, Section 11599, General Code, indicated that the clerk and the court were 'without power to enter a judgment until after expiration of the time for the filing of a motion for a new trial.' In the opinion by Marshall, C.J., it is stated, 124 Ohio St. on page 19, 176 N.E. on page 662:
'Technically speaking, the finding of the court would not be the verdict of a jury, but the rights of the parties would be the same in either event.'
In the court's opinion by Matthias, J., in Von Gunten v. New Justice Coal Co., 147 Ohio St. 511, on page 521, 72 N.E.2d 253, 258, it is said, after a reference to and a quotation from the Boedker case:
'If an application for a new trial is necessary in a chancery case, and that question has been answered in the affirmative in the case of Cullen v. Schmit, supra [137 Ohio St 479, 30 N.E.2d 994], the same rule must be applied to the decision of a court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial