Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0280-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SULLIVAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 324
    TWIN DRY CELL CO. v. SOUTHWORTH
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 7494.
    Decided Oct. 4, 1926
    480. EVIDENCE — Where there is a mere conflict of evidence a reviewing court cannot reverse on weight of evidence, for such is a matter of law and not a matter of the courts opinion.
    677. JUDGMENTS & DECREES — Where from the evidence both parties could have avoided an accident, the court will not reverse, where court denies either damages.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — Bartholomew, Leeper & McGill for Twin Cell Co.; Quigley & Byrnes for South-worth Co.; all of Cleveland.
   SULLIVAN, J.

This cause comes into this court on error' from the Cleveland Municipal Court and it is sought to reverse the judgment of the lower court upon the ground that the judgment is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

The facts in brief are that a truck of the W. P. Southworth Co. was traversing a street upon which it had the right of way when at an intersection it collided with a truck of the Twin Dry Cell Battery Company. The court found for the Southworth Co. on its statement of claim, and the Dry Cell Co. on its cross statement of claim. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The facts in the case are merely in conflict, which does not allow a reviewing court to reverse on the weight of the evidence. The court can only reverse upon this ground when it appears as a matter of law, and not as a matter of judgment or opinion of the reviewing court.

2. The lower court, in face of the evidence, gave each party judgment on their respective claims and this judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

(Levine, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)