Case Name: PIERSON v. MOONEY
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-12-12
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 102
Docket Number: No. 1236
Parties: PIERSON v. MOONEY
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 102–102

Head Matter:
No. 169
PIERSON v. MOONEY
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin Co.
No. 1236.
Decided Dec. 12, 1924.
683. JURY—Questions as to market value of injured land before and after the trespass, and as to conflict of evidence, are for jury to determine.
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
Attorneys—John A. Conner and A. H. Mo-sier, for Pierson; Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, for Mooney; all of Columbus.

Opinion:
ALLREAD, J.
Epitomized Opinion
L'Derrie Mooney brought an action for damages, for trespass, against David Pierson, in the Franklin Common Pleas; Mooney claimed that Pierson had entered her lot, destroyed certain trees, made certain excavations and built a roadway diagonally across the lot. Pier-son contended that he owned an adjoining lot and thought at the time he built said roadway it was upon his own property. No wilful, and malicious trespass resulted therefrom. Pier-son, in the trial court, objected to testimony, that Mooney had intended to build a home on the lot. He requested the court to charge the jury to the effect, that the measure of damages was the difference in the fair market value before and after the trespass had been committed. Judgment for $700 was returned on the verdict.
The Court of Appeals held:
Even though the lower court might have erred in admitting evidence of Mooney's intention of building on the lot, it was of no avail, for the court charged the jury as requested, in regards to the damages.
Conflict of evidence, as to the value of destroyed trees, was a question for the jury, as was the determination of the difference between the land before and after the injury.
The Court is unable to find the verdict so manifestly excessive as to disturb it; inasmuch as the jury, and not this court, had the opportunity of judging the credibility of witnesses. Judgment affirmed.