Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0531-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SULLIVAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 590
    SPITZ, et v. SPITZ
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 8222,
    Decided June 27, 1927.
    482. EXCEPTIONS — Proper objections must be raised and exceptions taken by complaining party who claims prejudicial error in instructions of court.
    225. CHARGE OF COURT — Counsel must make special requests or applications to court, to supply omissions in charge, in order to eradicate error complained of.
    1265. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE — Reviewing court will not set aside verdict on weight of evidence unless record shows some striking fact or circumstance which is grave error to such a degree that it is shocking to the senses.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — Wm. W. Rosenzweig for plaintiffs in error, et; M. Welensky for defendant in error, both of Cleveland.
   SULLIVAN, J.

Plaintiff herein seeks reversal on the ground that the court committed error in the charge, and various other errors, and that the verdict and judgment are clearly _ and manifestly against the weight of the evidence,

The action of the court below was based upon a written agreement for legal services, which agreement provided for a fee contingent upon the carrying out of all the provisions therein contained.

It was alleged that all the terms of the agreement were complied with, and, after trial, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

We find, on examination of the record, that the assignment of error as to the charge, is not well taken. In the first place, we do not find any prejudicial error in the instructions of the court, and it does not appear that proper objections and exceptions were taken by the complaining party.

It further appears that as to omissions, counsel did not make any special requests or any applications to the court, to supply the omissions, in order to eradicate any error complained of. Hence, as to the charge, we find no prejudicial error.

In order to set the verdict aside as a matter of law, there must project from the record some striking fact or circumstance which shows that a grave error has been committed by the jury or court below, and to such a degree that it is shocking to the senses. We do not find any such status in this record.

Judgment affirmed.

(Vickery and Levine, JJ., concur.)