Case ID: ohio-law-abs_19/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HI-GRADE OIL CO v CITIES SERVICE OIL CO
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
    No 2478.
    Decided March 6, 1935
    W. b: McLeskey, Columbus, for • plaintiff in error.
    H. E. Gingher, Columbus, and B. G. Gearhart, Columbus, for defendant in error.
   OPINION

By THE COURT

Our consideration of the authorities leads us to the same conclusion as that which was reached by the trial court and which 5s stated in some detail in the bill of exceptions.

We can not escape the conclusion but that the trial court' under the. authorities was justified in instructing a verdict.

We have considered all of the grounds of error urged, by counsel for plaintiff in error, but finding no error in the record which we consider prejudicial to plaintiff in error, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

KUNKLE, PJ, BARNES and HORNBECK, JJ, concur.