Schaible v. City of Cincinnati
| Decision Date | 14 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32866,32866 |
| Citation | 106 N.E.2d 81,157 Ohio St. 512 |
| Parties | , 47 O.O. 368 SCHAIBLE v. CITY OF CINCINNATI. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
This action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of a sidewalk and park strip being permitted to become and remain in a defective condition.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment and for a new trial, on five separate grounds. The motion was granted but the journal entry does not disclose upon which ground or grounds the court based its order, and no request to state the grounds was made, as authorized by Section 12223-2, General Code.
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals from the order setting aside the verdict and judgment and granting a new trial. The Court of Appeals, on motion to dismiss the appeal, found 'that granting of the motion for a new trial is not a judgment or final order and that the trial court in granting the motion for a new trial did not abuse its discretion,' and dismissed the appeal.
The allowance of a motion to certify the record brings the cause to this court for review.
Henry M. Bruestle, City Sol., J. B. Grause, Jr., and Maurice W. Jacobs, all of Cincinnati, for appellant.
John J. Rivers, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Since the journal entry of the trial court setting aside the verdict and judgment and granting a new trial does not disclose the ground or grounds for such order, and an examination of the record fails to disclose an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in making the order, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. See Schwer, Adm'x, v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Rd. Co., 156 Ohio St. 115, 100 N.E.2d 197, and Green v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co., 156 Ohio St. 1, 100 N.E.2d 211.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Modic v. Modic
-
State v. Huntsman
...223; Mele v. Mason, 156 Ohio St. 118, 100 N.E.2d 224; Lawrence v. Moore, 156 Ohio St. 375, 102 N.E.2d 595; Schaible v. City of Cincinnati, 157 Ohio St. 512, 106 N.E.2d 81; Lehman v. Haynam, 164 Ohio St. 595, 602, 133 N.E.2d 97; DeTunno v. Shull, 166 Ohio St. 365, 143 N.E.2d 301; State ex re......
-
Lehman v. Haynam
...upon a matter wholly within the discretion of the trial court, such as the weight of the evidence. See also Schaible v. City of Cincinnati, 157 Ohio St. 512, 106 N.E.2d 81; Schwer, Adm'x, v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., 156 Ohio St. 115, 100 N.E.2d 197. Perhaps therefore the law as......
-
Cohen v. Cohen, 32793
... ... wife with some of plaintiff's children lived in the house, which was on Carplin Place in Cincinnati, until Joseph Cohen died on August 7, 1941 ... By his will Joseph Cohen devised ... ...