Case ID: ohio-law-abs_23/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

MARTINDALE v BARLOW MOTOR CAR CO
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co
    No 1407.
    Decided Jan 22, 1937
    Kelly, Knee & Wick, Dayton, for appellant.
    Scharrer, Scharrer, McCarthy & Hana-ghan, Dayton, for appellee.
   OPINION

By THE COURT

Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in this case. Inasmuch as Rule 11 of this court provides that no such motion can be made it will be treated as an application for a rehearing.

We find no reason for changing our decision in this case. Upon a careful review of the testimony it appeared clear that there was a direct conflict in the evidence, and that the finding and judgment of the trial court had ample support. For the reasons stated in our previous decision, the application for rehearing is overruled.

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