Case Name: A. R. Clark & Co. v. Bradshaw & Wait
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1887-01
Citations: 2 Ohio C.C. 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. R. Clark & Co. v. Bradshaw & Wait.
Judges: Before Smith, C. J., and Cox and Swing, Judges.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of Ohio
Volume: 2
Pages: 56–56

Head Matter:
First Circuit — Hamilton County, O., Circuit Court
January Term, 1887.)
Before Smith, C. J., and Cox and Swing, Judges.
A. R. Clark & Co. v. Bradshaw & Wait.
Judgment must JPolloio the General Verdict when a Special Finding is not Inconsistent with it.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.
I. M. Jordan and W. G. Williams, for plaintiffs in error.
A. C- Shattuck, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Cox, J.
Plaintiffs in error sought to recover below a sum of money which they claimed they had paid involuntarily. The controversy had been as to the price plaintiffs were to pay for -a quantity of goods. Plaintiffs claimed that they were to be furnished the goods at the lowest price which might obtain during a period of thirty days. The jury returned a general-verdict for plaintiffs, an'd also a special verdict finding that the price of the goods was to be the lowest prevailing during the designated period of thirty days. The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the verdict, and also for a new trial, which motions were overruled, and on motion of defendants judgment was given in their favor.
Held, that the special verdict was not inconsistent with the general verdict, and the judgment should have been for the plaintiffs, under section 5202, Rev. Stats., or the court should have granted a new trial.
Cause remanded.