Ohio Court of Appeals, 1935

Jackson v. Doernberg

Jackson v. Doernberg
Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided November 12, 1935 · Hamilton, Matthews, Ross
20 Ohio Law. Abs. 362; 1935 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1066

Jackson v. Doernberg

Opinion of the Court

*363OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

Thus, the sole issue presented was who was responsible for the misdescription in the contract.

The evidence was in dispute.

Of course, if it was the fault of plaintiff, he cannot recover a commission, since the failure to procure a lessee was his fault, and he, therefore, failed to properly perform his contract to procure a lessee.

Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show the defendant was solely responsible for the misdescription..

Defendant’s evidence tended to show it was the fault of the plaintiff, and she was strongly corroborated in this.

The weighing of this evidence and the credibility of the witnesses was for the trial court.

We do not find the judgment to be manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and since this is the only question presented, the judgment is affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.