Legal Opinion

Janosik v. Spang

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 17, 1934No. 2381PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By STEVENS, J.

But two assignments of error are urged by counsel:

1. Error in the charge of the court.

2. Error in' the admission and rejection of evidence.

The record discloses that plaintiff and Steve Matusky were riding as passengers in a car owned and driven by Mike Lucas, under an arrangement whereby plaintiff “engaged Lucas to take them to Cleveland in his car when they would be off' work, they to pay the gas for the trip.”

In the transaction in question,- -we- find *73no facts which justify the conclusion that the driver, Lucas, was the servant of the plaintiff, or that Lucas was the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rothgery v. SeatonOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  2. Collins v. BolusOhio Court of Appeals · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Elfers v. BrightOhio Court of Appeals · 1958
  2. Lucas v. SpangOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
  3. Miller v. FairleyCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API