Case Name: PRATT v. BRIANT et al
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-01-31
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 285
Docket Number: No. 1095
Parties: PRATT v. BRIANT et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
No. 332
PRATT v. BRIANT et al
Ohio Appeals, 2d Dist., Franklin County
No. 1095.
Decided Jan. 31, 1924
561. FRAUD — Verdict held not manifestly against weight of evidence.
Attorneys — Grover C. Brown and Guy V. Pridley, for Pratt; Thomas M. Sherman and Morrow & Morrow, for Briant et al; all of Columbus.

Opinion:
KUNKLE, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract
This was an action for fraud brought by Briant against Pratt. Briant claimed that when Pratt sold him a certain moving- picture business he represented that he owned 233 chairs, a pop corn machine, and that he had a lease upon the room in which the business was being conducted. Briant claimed that he was damaged in the sum of $1,671.50 as a result of these fraudulent misrepresentations. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Briant in the sum of $1,000. Defendant prosecuted error, claiming the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:
1. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.