Case Name: Merrell, Dir. of Highways, v. Matt et al.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-02-15
Citations: 42 Ohio App. 403
Docket Number: 
Parties: Merrell, Dir. of Highways, v. Matt et al.
Judges: Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur. Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 403–406

Head Matter:
Merrell, Dir. of Highways, v. Matt et al.
(Decided February 15, 1932.)
Mr. Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, and Mr. Raymond S. Powers, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. JoTm A. Scanlon, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Ross, P. J.
This case is presented to this court on error from the probate court of Hamilton county, wherein a judgment in condemnation and appropriation of property was rendered in the sum of $6,975.
A motion was made in this court to dismiss the petition in error, on the ground that the statute of the state in the instant case permits no proceedings in error direct to this court from the probate court. It has been repeatedly held that this court has such jurisdiction from all courts of record in this state, by virtue of the provisions of Article IV, Section 6, of the Ohio Constitution.
Other grounds urged in support of the motion are found to be unsupported, and the motion is overruled.
An examination of the record discloses that upon the first trial of this cause the jury rendered the following verdict:
1. Compensation for land taken, including compensation for all improvements thereon' if you find that residence is entirely appropriated.................. $-
2. Compensation for land taken, including compensation for all improvements thereon if you find that residence is not entirely appropriated................ $ 980.00
3. Damages to the residue of the property: $2,995.00
$3,975.00
And in the last trial the verdict was as follows:
1. Compensation for land taken, and for all improvements thereon, if you find that improvements are entirely appropriated . $--
2. Compensation for land taken, and for improvements thereon, if not entirely appropriated . $5,130.00
3. Damages to residue:................. $1,845.00
Total............................. $6,975.00
A review of the record convinces the entire court that the last verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and that the former verdict is much more nearly correct than the latter.
In the absence of the acceptance of a remittitur to the extent of $1,975, the case will be remanded for a new trial. If such remittihtr is accepted, the judgment, modified to the extent of the remittitur, will be affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur. Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur.
(Decided February 29, 1932.)
Mr. Charles G. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John A. Scanlon, for defendants in error.