Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pearson v. Gardner Cartage Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1947No. 30940Published

1ConcurrenceHart, J.

I concur fully in the syllabus, in the judgment and in the reasoning of Judge Turner’s opinion in support thereof, but I deem it proper to state the reasons for my concurrence in allowing in this proceeding the motion of Hauserman company to strike as against it'Pearson’s assignment of error.

Pearson, as plaintiff, sought a joint judgment in a tort action against both defendants. On motion, there was a judgment for the defendant Hauserman company at the close of plaintiff’s case and a verdict of the jury for the defendant Gardner Cartage Company. There was one motion for a new trial as against…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re KurtzhalzOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Keesecker v. G. M. McKelvey Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
  3. State Ex Rel. Hughes v. CramerOhio Supreme Court · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API