Carl v. Shaffer, Admx.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtLloyd, J.
The three above captioned actions were based on distinct and unrelated causes of action and therefore could not and were not consolidated, and, although by consent of counsel and apparently at the request of counsel for plaintiffs, they were for convenience tried together, the trial judge submitted them to the jury as separate actions and so instructed the jury in his general charge.
A casual reading of the petitions of the plaintiffs would, it would seem, have at once suggested the difficulties inevitable7 arising from trying to try these actions together.
Vida Carl in her petition sought to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. TraverAppellate Court of Illinois · 1934
- Geason v. SchaeferWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- State v. . BentonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. DanberrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Campbell v. MarquisOhio Court of Appeals · 1960