Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0407-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAYRE, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 411
    MILJENOVIC v. DILL
    Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Cuyahoga County
    No. 4335.
    April 26, 1923
    his opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    RROR — (1) Judgment not contrary to evidence— (2) General exception to charge of court does not raise question of error as to omission to charge.
    Middleton, P. J., Mauch and Sayre, JJ. 4th District, sitting.
    Attorneys — W. H. Boyd, Frank C. Friend and E. V. Waite, for Miljenovic; Day & Day and Wm. J. ¡haver, for Dill.
   SAYRE, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

rror to Cuyahoga Common Pleas; judgment affirmed In an action for personal injury suffered by Dill then she was struck by defendant’s automobile, thich was being driven across the sidewalk near de-endant’s home, plaintiff recovered, and defendant rosecutes error, alleging that the verdict is against he weight of the evidence and that the court failed d charge at sufficient length. Held by Court of Ap-eáis in affirming judgment:

1. The judgment is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and will not be reversed on hat ground.

2. A general exception to a charge of the court oes not raise any question of error as to the omis-ión of the court to give further correct instructions, State v. McCoy, 88 O. S. 447.