Case Name: The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry Co. v. Edmund O. Luthy, Administrator, etc.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 250
Docket Number: No. 18654
Parties: The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry Co. v Edmund O. Luthy, Administrator, etc.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 250–250

Head Matter:
No. 386
No. 18654
The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry Co. v Edmund O. Luthy, Administrator, etc.
Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton County.
1235. VERDICT, Directed — Where both plaintiff and defendant move for directed verdict, to sustain plaintiff’s motion without passing upon defendant’s and directing verdict for plaintiff, if there are disputed questions, is error.

Opinion:
MATTHIAS, J.
Where, at the close of all the evidence submitted in the trial of a case which presents a jury issue, a motion is made by the defendant for a directed verdict, and thereupon a like motion is made by the plaintiff, and the court, without passing upon the defendant's motion, announces that the plaintiff's motion is sustained, and immediately, without. affording the defendant any opportunity whatever to request a withdrawal of his motion and a submission of the case to the jury, directs the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff, it appearing that there were disputed questions of fact, such action constitutes error prejudicial to the defendant, warranting a reversal of the judgment based upon a verdict so returned.
Judgment reversed.
Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.