Case Name: NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. WIENETSKY
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-02-19
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 265
Docket Number: No. 1272
Parties: NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. WIENETSKY
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
217
NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. WIENETSKY
Ohio Court of Appeals, Lucas County.
No. 1272.
February 19, 1923
r"’ i^ o-irion has n-ot been published except in Abstract
JURISDICTION OF APPELLATE COURT —(1) Court of Appeals cannot consider weight of evidence in case where verdict of jury was set aside by trial judge as being against weight of evidence.
Error to Lucas Court, of Common Pleas
Attorneys, Smith, Beckwith & Ohlinger, for the Bank; B. W. Johnson and Mrs. Eva Epstein Shaw, for Wienetsky.

Opinion:
Epitomized Opinion
BY THE COURT:
Wienetsky commenced action in the lower court to recover various sums delivered by him to the bank for the purchase of kronen to be sent by it to his wife in Austria-Hungary. The evidence differs as to why the Bank failed to remit the money. The. case has been tried to four different juries, two of which were unable to agree and one of which returned a verdict for Wienetsky, which verdict was set aside by the trial court because it was contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence. The last jury returned a verdict for Wienetsky and the Bank prosecutes error to this court. Held by Court of Appeals in affirming judgment:
1.Where a verdict is set aside, by the trial judge, by a decision which recites that one of the grounds is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, the Court of Appeals is without power to consider the weight of the evidence as set forth in the record. Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Trendal, 101 O. S. 316.