Case Name: WADLEY v. ROTH
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-05-04
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 568
Docket Number: No. 636
Parties: WADLEY v. ROTH
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
No. 597
WADLEY v. ROTH
Ohio Appeals, 8th District, Summit County
No. 636.
Decided May 4, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
NEW TRIAL — Rule of court as to what law requires for a reversal pf a finding that a judgment is manifestly and clearly against the weight of evidence.
Attorneys — Mottingér and Evans, for Wadley; Harter, Walker and Watters, contra.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Epitomized Opinion
The plaintiff, Roth, recovered a judgment against Wadley in the Court of Common Pleas and the defendant prosecuted error, claiming that the judgment is manifestly against the weight of evidence. The Court of Appeals held:
To reverse the judgment upon that ground, the law requires that all the members of the Appellate Court shall concur in a finding to that effect. This court being unanimously of the opinion that the judgment was not so against the weight of evidence. It is therefore affirmed.