Case Name: MARTINDALE v. BARLOW MOTOR CAR CO
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1937-01-22
Citations: 23 Ohio Law Abs. 654
Docket Number: No 1407
Parties: MARTINDALE v BARLOW MOTOR CAR CO
Judges: CRAIG, PJ, HORNBECK and BARNES, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 23
Pages: 654–654

Head Matter:
MARTINDALE v BARLOW MOTOR CAR CO
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co
No 1407.
Decided Jan 22, 1937
Kelly, Knee & Wick, Dayton, for appellant.
Scharrer, Scharrer, McCarthy & Hana-ghan, Dayton, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
By THE COURT
Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in this case. Inasmuch as Rule 11 of this court provides that no such motion can be made it will be treated as an application for a rehearing.
We find no reason for changing our decision in this case. Upon a careful review of the testimony it appeared clear that there was a direct conflict in the evidence, and that the finding and judgment of the trial court had ample support. For the reasons stated in our previous decision, the application for rehearing is overruled.
CRAIG, PJ, HORNBECK and BARNES, JJ, concur.