Case Name: WURLITZER CO. v. BLACK
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-11-26
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 727
Docket Number: No. 214
Parties: WURLITZER CO. v. BLACK
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 727–727

Head Matter:
No. 756
WURLITZER CO. v. BLACK
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Butler County
No. 214.
Decided Nov. 26, 1923
225. CHARGE TO JURY — Where charge to jury! is defective but complaining party is not injured thereby, no reversible error exists,
Attorneys — Andrews, Andrews & Rogers, for Wurlitzer Co.; Clinton Egbert, for Black; all of Hamilton.

Opinion:
HAMILTON, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
Black brought an action against the Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. to recover damaged for breach of an employment contract by discharging him during the term of his employment. The defense was a breach of contract by Black in failing and refusing to perform the labor and work required of him. The written agreement provided that Black was to give his services as piano repair man to the Wurlitzer Co. at their store in Hamilton, for a period of one year. The court submitted the question to the jury as to whether or not, under the terms of the agreement, it was the duty of Black to go to Middletown to do work for the company. The jury returned a verdict for Black, whereupon the defendant prosecuted error, claiming that it was' the duty of the court to determine from the contract whether it was the duty of Black to go outside of the city. In affirming the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:
In the charge was correct in permitting the jury to construe the contract, the Wurlitzer Co. was not injured by the submission of the question to the jury. Haid the court construed the contract under its express terms, the court would necessarily have found that Black was not required to go to Middletown to perform the services.