Case Name: MILJENOVIC v. DILL
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-04-26
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 407
Docket Number: No. 4335
Parties: MILJENOVIC v. DILL
Judges: Middleton, P. J., Mauch and Sayre, JJ. 4th District, sitting.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 407–407

Head Matter:
No. 411
MILJENOVIC v. DILL
Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Cuyahoga County
No. 4335.
April 26, 1923
his opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
RROR — (1) Judgment not contrary to evidence— (2) General exception to charge of court does not raise question of error as to omission to charge.
Middleton, P. J., Mauch and Sayre, JJ. 4th District, sitting.
Attorneys — W. H. Boyd, Frank C. Friend and E. V. Waite, for Miljenovic; Day & Day and Wm. J. ¡haver, for Dill.

Opinion:
SAYRE, J.:
Epitomized Opinion
rror to Cuyahoga Common Pleas; judgment affirmed In an action for personal injury suffered by Dill then she was struck by defendant's automobile, thich was being driven across the sidewalk near de-endant's home, plaintiff recovered, and defendant rosecutes error, alleging that the verdict is against he weight of the evidence and that the court failed d charge at sufficient length. Held by Court of Ap-eáis in affirming judgment:
1. The judgment is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and will not be reversed on hat ground.
2. A general exception to a charge of the court oes not raise any question of error as to the omis-ión of the court to give further correct instructions, State v. McCoy, 88 O. S. 447.