Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAMILTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 756
    WURLITZER CO. v. BLACK
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Butler County
    No. 214.
    Decided Nov. 26, 1923
    225. CHARGE TO JURY — Where charge to jury! is defective but complaining party is not injured thereby, no reversible error exists,
    Attorneys — Andrews, Andrews & Rogers, for Wurlitzer Co.; Clinton Egbert, for Black; all of Hamilton.
   HAMILTON, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Published only in Ohio Law Abstract

Black brought an action against the Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. to recover damaged for breach of an employment contract by discharging him during the term of his employment. The defense was a breach of contract by Black in failing and refusing to perform the labor and work required of him. The written agreement provided that Black was to give his services as piano repair man to the Wurlitzer Co. at their store in Hamilton, for a period of one year. The court submitted the question to the jury as to whether or not, under the terms of the agreement, it was the duty of Black to go to Middletown to do work for the company. The jury returned a verdict for Black, whereupon the defendant prosecuted error, claiming that it was' the duty of the court to determine from the contract whether it was the duty of Black to go outside of the city. In affirming the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

In the charge was correct in permitting the jury to construe the contract, the Wurlitzer Co. was not injured by the submission of the question to the jury. Haid the court construed the contract under its express terms, the court would necessarily have found that Black was not required to go to Middletown to perform the services.