Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0760-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      HOUCK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 834
    HAMILTON v. OHIO CONTRACT PURCHASE CO.
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin Co.
    Addison & Evans, Columbus, for Hamilton.
    Turner, Calland & Summers, Columbus, for Purchase Co.
    831. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. — 941. Practice and Procedure. — 1265. Weight of Evidence.
   HOUCK, J.

1. Question whether note sued on was purchased in due course before due, for consideration, and without knowledge of any defects therein, are questions of fact, to be determined by jury.

2. Though evidence offered might cause •different minds to reach different conclusions, when jury has made ultimate findings on conflicting facts, reviewing court cannot reverse judgment as against manifest weight of evidence.

(Shields and Young, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.