Case Name: GEORGE HIEBER v. THE COMMERCIAL-TRIBUNE COMPANY
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-11
Citations: 8 Ohio N.P. 694
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE HIEBER v. THE COMMERCIAL —TRIBUNE COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio nisi prius and general term reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
(Cincinnati Sup. Ct.,
Gen. Term., Nov., 1901.)
GEORGE HIEBER v. THE COMMERCIAL —TRIBUNE COMPANY.
Error will not be considered upon the petition of one in whose favor the jury found all t'be substantive issues.
M. F. Galvin, for Plaintiff in Error.
T. M. Hinkle, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this case the plaintiff in error had in the court below a verdict and judgment in his favor; the damages recovered by him were merely nominal. He prosecuted error here because of various alleged errors occurring at the trial below, and because of the court's action in overruling a motion for a new trial directed to the weight of the evidence.
All of the alleged errors complained of except the action of the court on the complaint that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, are rendered immaterial in this court by reason of the fact that, assuming the court below did commit error, the plaintiff in error was not prejudiced, because, notwithstanding such error, the jury found all of the substantive issue in his favor. The only question left for us to determine is whether the amount of the damages was against the weight of the evidence.
There was conflicting evidence on that question, and following the well known rule of this court on that subject, we can not disturb the action of the court and jury below, unless such action was clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. We can not say that it was. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.