Case Name: TODD v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO OF NEW YORK
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1936-05-25
Citations: 24 Ohio Law Abs. 620
Docket Number: 
Parties: TODD v FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO OF NEW YORK
Judges: CARPENTER, J, concurs.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 24
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
TODD v FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO OF NEW YORK
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas 'Co
Decided May 25, 1936
Harold A. James, Toledo, and Doyle & Lewis, Toledo, for appellee.
W. W. Campbell, Toledo, and George H. Lewis, Toledo, for appellant..

Opinion:
OPINION
By OVERMYER, J.
This is an appeal on questions of law in an action for money only brought by George M. Todd against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Issue was joined and on trial to a jury, at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant company moved for a directed verdict in its favor, which motion was overruled. Thereupon, the defendant rested, and both sides rested, and the following proceedings appear in the record:
"By Mr. Campbell: The defendant renews its motion for a directed verdict.
"By the Court: Overruled.
"By Mr. James: Just a minute.
"By Mr. Campbell': Exception.
"By Mr. James: The plaintiff now moves for a directed verdict on the evidence.
"By Mr. Campbell: I want to know what the court holds the record is now?
"By the Court: The court will hold that they are double motions.
"By Mr. Campbell: Now pending before the court?
"By the Court: Yes.
"By Mr. Campbell: The defendant withdraws his.
"By Mr. James: Our motion will stand.
"By the Court: I will grant your motion.
"By Mr. Campbell: Exception."
Thereupon the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount determined by the court to be due the plaintiff.
Clearly, when the defendant withdrew its motion, which it had a right to withdraw after the court ruled that both motions were pending, there remained only the plaintiff's motion pending and the jury could not be discharged from a consideration of the facts, there being fact issues presented by the evidence. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v Luthy, 112 Oh St 321, 147 NE 336; Need v Hershman, 103 Oh St 13, 132 NE 19, 18 A.L.R. 1419.
The defendant's withdrawal of its mo tion for a directed verdict was tantamount to a request to submit the case to the jury, and failure to so submit it was prejudicial error requiring a reversal. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
CARPENTER, J, concurs.
LLOYD, J, not participating.