Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0020-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 23
    PANCERO v. PANCERO
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
    Decided April 12, 1926
    1235. VERDICTS — AVhen a petition con-, tains material allegations of agency, power to borrow money and conduct business, etc., it is error for a trial court to sustain a directed verdict where evidence tends to support such allegations.
    Attorneys — Jos. T. Harrison for Louise Pan-cero; Froome Morris and August Knapp for Charles Pancero; all of Cincinnati.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error, Louise Pancero who was plaintiff below, brought suit against Charles Pancero on three causes of action for money. The substance of the petition was that one Lester Pancero was -the agent and manager of the butcher business of Charles Pancero, with authority to purchase supplies, conduct the business, collect accounts, borrow money for the business; and that in pursuance thereof he borrowed $350 from the said Louise Pan-cero and same has not been paid.

The defense, at the close of Louise Pancero’s testimony, moved for a directed verdict and same was rendered by the Hamilton Common Pleas. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. The instructed verdict could only be correct if there was no evidence tending’ to sustain the material allegations of the petition.

2. The record discloses that the evidence tends to support the allegations of the petition in its essential parts.

3. The question presented as to whether or not Lester Pancero was the manager and agent of Charles Pancero, his power to borrow money, whether it was done at defendant’s instance were all questions that should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions.

Judgment therefore reversed.

(Buchwalter, PJ., Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur.)