Koller Bros. v. Jolls, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 250 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925). · Go Syfert
Search
Koller Bros. v. Jolls, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 250 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KOLLER BROS.
v.
JOLLS
No. 5907.
Ohio Court of Appeals.
Nov 16, 1925.
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 250
1925 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1036
Attorneys — Sanders, Monahan & Sanders for Koller Bros.; Hedrick & Hedrick for Jolls; all of Cleveland.
Vickery.
Published
VICKERY, J.

This cause arose in the Municipal Court of Cleveland. Said court permitted Ernest Jol[*251] les when on the stand, to refresh his memory from a copy of the statement of defense used-in' the trial.

Attorneys — Sanders, Monahan & Sanders for Koller Bros.; Hedrick & Hedrick for Jolls; all of Cleveland.

Counsel for Koller Bros, objected to this copy being shown to witness. The Court overruled this objection, and counsel saved the exception.

The Court of Appeals held:

' It is prejudicial error to permit a witness to refresh his memory from copies of the pleadings.

Judgment reversed.