Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0819-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 1056
    DE RAN et v. SCHMIDT
    No. 20103.
    Supreme Court
    Petition in Error.
    Dock. Sept. 27, 1926,
    4 Abs. 670.
    941. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Does 11364 GC. authorize the Court of Appeals to enter final judgment upon a certificate and finding that substantial justice has been done when record discloses error in admission and rejection of evidence in trial court?
    Attorneys — D. B. Love and H. C. De Ran for plaintiff in error; both of Fremont.
   H. C. De Ran and Michael Wagner complain of Harry E. Schmidt in that on July 23, 1926 the Sandusky Court of Appeals, in a certain action in that court, found that there was error in said record in matters affecting the substantial rights of plaintiffs in error; and further found that substantial justice had been done.

In the Supreme Court, on a petition in error, it is claimed that the issues and matters in which errors were shown by the record to exist, were questions of fact which De Ran et al had a constitutional right to have tried to a jury, and that the finding and certificate of substantial justice by the Court of Appeals was in effect a denial of plaintiffs in error’s constitutional rights guaranteed Art. 1, Sec. 5 of the Ohio Constitution.

It is further claimed that 11364 GC. does not authorize a finding or certificate of substantial justice in eases where the record discloses errors in the admission or rejection of evidence going to the merits of the case; and when such action of the trial court is prejudicial to the rights of the parties complaining, and if it did, it would be unconstitutional as violative of the aforementioned article and of the XIV amendment to the Federal Constitution.