Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0568-01.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. 597
    WADLEY v. ROTH
    Ohio Appeals, 8th District, Summit County
    No. 636.
    Decided May 4, 1923
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    NEW TRIAL — Rule of court as to what law requires for a reversal pf a finding that a judgment is manifestly and clearly against the weight of evidence.
    Attorneys — Mottingér and Evans, for Wadley; Harter, Walker and Watters, contra.
   PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

The plaintiff, Roth, recovered a judgment against Wadley in the Court of Common Pleas and the defendant prosecuted error, claiming that the judgment is manifestly against the weight of evidence. The Court of Appeals held:

To reverse the judgment upon that ground, the law requires that all the members of the Appellate Court shall concur in a finding to that effect. This court being unanimously of the opinion that the judgment was not so against the weight of evidence. It is therefore affirmed.