Thompson v. Titus, 35770
| Decision Date | 06 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 35770,35770 |
| Citation | 158 N.E.2d 357,169 Ohio St. 203 |
| Parties | , 8 O.O.2d 166 THOMPSON, Appellee, v. TITUS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Maddox & Hire, Washington C. H., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, John M. Rankin, Columbus, and William E. Bailey, Springfield, for appellant.
Herbert, Tuttle, Applegate & Britt, C. Richard O'Neil, Columbus, and F. Scott Zimmerman, Washington C. H., for appellee.
The question presented here is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the judgment of the trial court constituted an abuse of discretion.
The powers and duties of a trial court with reference to granting a new trial on the weight of the evidence are defined in Poske v. Mergl, 169 Ohio St. 70, 157 N.E.2d 344.
A motion for a new trial on the ground that the judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence imposes upon the trial court a duty to review the evidence and pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence in general. The action of the court on such motion rests solely within its sound discretion and is not reviewable except on the question of an abuse of that discretion. To establish an abuse thereof there must be shown an unreasonable arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court. Since a careful examination of the record in the instant case fails to disclose any unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the trial court in sustaining the motion for a new trial, there was no abuse of discretion and the Court of Appeals was in error in its judgment of reversal.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed. Poske v. Mergl, supra.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rohde v. Farmer
...abuse of that discretion.' Those holdings in the Poske case were applied and followed in opinions by the court in Thompson v. Tutus (1959), 169 Ohio St. 203, 158 N.E.2d 357, and Berry v. Roy (1961), 172 Ohio St. 422, 178 N.E.2d We come now to Price v. McCoy Sales & Service, supra, 2 Ohio St......
-
Barbara J. Carney v. Hulon Mcafee
...Berry v. Roy (1961), 172 Ohio St. 422; Conner v. Conner (1959), 170 Ohio St. 85; Poske v. Mergl (1959), 169 Ohio St. 70; Thompson v. Titus (1959), 169 Ohio St. 203; State Loucks (1971), 28 Ohio App. 2d 77; Weatherbie v. McLane (Dec. 31, 1985), Huron App. No. H-85-12, unreported. The damages......
-
State v. Huntsman
...State ex rel. Blasko v. McGinnis, 167 Ohio St. 532, 150 N.E.2d 409; Poske v. Mergl, 169 Ohio St. 70, 157 N.E.2d 344; Thompson v. Titus, 169 Ohio St. 203, 158 N.E.2d 357; Berry v. Roy, 172 Ohio St. 422, 178 N.E.2d 37; Price v. McCoy Sales & Service, Inc., supra, 2 Ohio St.2d 131, 207 N.E.2d ......
-
Wightman v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...court's discretion, absent an abuse of discretion, when it determines a verdict to be legally excessive. See Thompson v. Titus (1959), 169 Ohio St. 203, 8 O.O.2d 166, 158 N.E.2d 357; Larrissey at 219-220, 44 O.O. at 243-244, 98 N.E.2d at 426. However, we cannot defer to a judgment that the ......