Case ID: ohio-st_81/html/0571-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 11285.
    Neuzel v. The Village of College Hill et al.
    Decided February 23, 1910.
    Error to Circuit Court of Flamilton county.
    
      Mr. A. L. Herrlinger; Mr. Constant South-worth and Mr. Edward T. Dixon, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Mr. C. Hammond Avery, for defendants in error.
   Judgment affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. An order granting a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, made in an appropriation proceeding by a municipal corporation, is not an order affecting a substantial right, for the reversal of which a petition in error can be prosecuted before the final disposition of the case. Conord v. Runnels, 23 Ohio St., 601, followed.

Summers, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.