Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

SCHWER v. RD. CO., 156 Ohio St. 115 (1951)

SCHWER, ADMX., APPELLEE v. N.Y., Chi. ST. LOUIS RD. CO.,APPELLANT., 100 N.E.2d 197 (Ohio 1951)

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohlaw Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohlaw
Date
1951-07-11
Topic
general

SCHWER v. RD. CO., 156 Ohio St. 115 (1951) 100 N.E.2d 197 SCHWER, ADMX., APPELLEE v. THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO ST. LOUIS RD.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SCHWER v. RD. CO., 156 Ohio St. 115 (1951). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SCHWER v. RD. CO.,156 Ohio St. 115(1951)
100 N.E.2d 197
SCHWER, ADMX., APPELLEE v. THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO ST. LOUIS RD. CO.,
APPELLANT.
No. 32267
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided July 11, 1951.
New trial — Order granting motion not disclosing ground therefor— Abuse of discretion not shown — Order affirmed.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga county.

This action was brought under authority of the Federal Employers' Liability Act to recover for the alleged wrongful death of a switchman while in the employ of the defendant railroad company. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the court directed a verdict in favor of defendant on the ground that the record contained no evidence on which negligence of a proximate-causal nature on the part of defendant could be inferred.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on six separate grounds. The motion was granted but the journalPage 116entry does not disclose upon which one or more grounds the court based its order.

The Court of Appeals approved the order of the trial court.

The cause is in this court on the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Messrs. Harrison, Thomas, Spangenberg Hull, Mr. Norman W.Shibley, andMr. S.L. Heckman, for appellee.Messrs. Miller Hornbeck, Mr. W.R. Price, andMr. John H.Ritter, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
The question presented is whether the action of the trial court in granting a new trial amounted to an abuse of discretion. Since the journal entry of the trial court granting the new trial does not disclose on what ground or grounds the motion was allowed, and an examination of the record fails to disclose an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.Judgment affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TAFT, MATTHIAS, and HART, JJ., concur.

MIDDLETON, J., not participating.Page 117