Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0285-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KUNKLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 332
    PRATT v. BRIANT et al
    Ohio Appeals, 2d Dist., Franklin County
    No. 1095.
    Decided Jan. 31, 1924
    561. FRAUD — Verdict held not manifestly against weight of evidence.
    Attorneys — Grover C. Brown and Guy V. Pridley, for Pratt; Thomas M. Sherman and Morrow & Morrow, for Briant et al; all of Columbus.
   KUNKLE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This was an action for fraud brought by Briant against Pratt. Briant claimed that when Pratt sold him a certain moving- picture business he represented that he owned 233 chairs, a pop corn machine, and that he had a lease upon the room in which the business was being conducted. Briant claimed that he was damaged in the sum of $1,671.50 as a result of these fraudulent misrepresentations. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Briant in the sum of $1,000. Defendant prosecuted error, claiming the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.