Gram v. Sampson
Ohio Circuit Courts
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clark County. In this case S. brought suit against G., Z., M. and D. to recover damages for false imprisonment. D. filed his answer, which was a general denial followed by a specific denial for himself. G. and Z., by other counsel, filed a separate answer making the same defense.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clark County. In this case S. brought suit against G., Z., M. and D. to recover damages for false imprisonment. D. filed his answer, which was a general denial followed by a specific denial for himself. G. and Z., by other counsel, filed a separate answer making the same defense. On the trial, as appears by the bill of exceptions, the answering defendants appeared by separate counsel, and after all the challenges for cause had been made and ruled upon by the court, the defendant G. challenged one of the jurors peremptorily; thereupon the plaintiff, having…
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.
The statute governing jury trials in civil cases provides, so-far as it relates to this question: “ Each party may peremptorily challenge two jurors.” Revised Statutes, section 5177. The only reported decision upon this point in Ohio, so far as we have been able to learn, is the case of Morris & Co. v. The Bricklayers’ Union et al., Superior Court of Cincinnati, General Term, found in 23 Weekly Law Bulletin, 48. The decision is adverse to the claim of the plaintiffs in error, but it is claimed that the authorities cited in support thereof do not sustain the court in its conclusions. There is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bibb v. ReidSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Schmidt v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1876
- Snodgrass v. HuntIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
- Stroh v. HinchmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- People v. O'loughlinUtah Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.