Case Name: SIMS et, etc v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RY CO
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1933-11-14
Citations: 15 Ohio Law Abs. 423
Docket Number: No 2302
Parties: SIMS et, etc v NORFOLK & WESTERN RY CO
Judges: (HORNBECK, Pj, Concurs in the judgment for the reason that in my'judgment the tax valuation of the property was competent evidence. It had some weight on the ultimate question for determination).
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 15
Pages: 423–425

Head Matter:
SIMS et, etc v NORFOLK & WESTERN RY CO
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Franklin Co
No 2302.
Decided Nov 14, 1933
Henry G. Binns, Columbus, for plaintiffs in error.
James I. Boulger, Columbus, Louis Ban-non, Portsmouth, and Harry C. Weaver, Columbus, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
OPINION
By KUNKLE, J.
We cannot escape the conclusion but that counsel have presented to this court purely a moot question, as the petition in error, does not claim that the verdict of the jury is inadequate.
The rule is well settled in Ohio that a reviewing court may not disturb the judgment of a lower court unless the record contains error which is prejudicial to plaintiff in error. It is not sufficient that the record contains erroneous rulings, but such erroneous rulings must have resulted in prejudicing the rights of plaintiff in error. Unless the reviewing court so finds, it is without authority to reverse. A few of the many authorities that could be cited upon this proposition are Hendrickson Machine Company v Schumacher Co., decided by the Court of Appeals of the 5th Appellate District and reported in the Ohio Law Reporter, Vol. 31, page 381, (7 Abs 732). The second syllabus of this case is,as follows:
"2nd. It is hardly possible that some error will not occur in a warmly contested case but a reversal cannot be based on such error unless it cleai'ly appears that a wrong verdict was returned."
In the case of State v Driscoll, reported in the 106 Oh St Reports at page 33, Chief Justice Marshall in rendering the opinion of the court on page 42 uses the following language:
"The modern tendency in the courts is away from technicalities towards the substance, and the farther this trend is developed the more respect the people will have for the courts. It was formerly the view of the courts that any technical error was reversible because it might have prejudiced the appellant. The modern view is that it should be shown that it probably did prejudice him before a reversal was justified."
If the entire record was before us we might think the verdict of the jury was inadequate. Upon the other hand, from a review of all the testimony we might think the verdict of the jury was manifestly excessive. We do not know what the testimony was upon the question of the value of this building.
We cannot escape the conclusion, that the jury was not affected by the testimony in question. This testimony shows that the tax valuation of the property was $420.00. Under our statutes the taxing authorities are required to return the property for taxation at its true value in money. In this respect our statute differs from that of many other states. The jury as above slated found in favor of plaintiffs in error in the sum of $500.00 with interest, from June, 1928, or a total finding by the jury of $637.50. Whether the testimony in question was properly or improperly admitted in our opinion becomes immaterial for the reason that it was not prejudicial to plaintiffs in error, as it is apparent from the verdict that the jury was not controlled by this testimony. The verdict of the jury is in excess of the amount suggested in the answer of the witness Garner.
Finding no error in the record which we. consider prejudicial to plaintiffs in error or which would warrant a reviewing court under the state of this record in reversing the judgment of the lower court, the same will be affirmed.
(HORNBECK, Pj, Concurs in the judgment for the reason that in my'judgment the tax valuation of the property was competent evidence. It had some weight on the ultimate question for determination).