converse rule in Ohio

2002Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 .

1983Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 .

2008Assn., Local 11 (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 177 , 572 N.E.2d 71 , at syllabus. {¶ 14} The converse principle is equally true.

2008Assn., Local 11 (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 177 , 572 N.E.2d 71 , at syllabus. {¶ 14} The converse principle is equally true.

1957In Richards v. Stratton, 112 Ohio St., 476 , at page 484, 147 N. E., 645 , Judge Matthias said: “There is a presumption that a situation established continues until the contrary is shown, hut the converse is not trued' (Emphasis added.) *253 Pursuant to this rule, we must conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish the identity of the defendant as the driver of the truck which collided with the plaintiff’s automobile, and that, therefore, the trial court was right in so construing the evidence.

1957In Richards v. Stratton, 112 Ohio St., 476 , at page 484, 147 N. E., 645 , Judge Matthias said: “There is a presumption that a situation established continues until the contrary is shown, hut the converse is not trued' (Emphasis added.) *253 Pursuant to this rule, we must conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish the identity of the defendant as the driver of the truck which collided with the plaintiff’s automobile, and that, therefore, the trial court was right in so construing the evidence.

1940The converse of this rule has been determined by the recent decision of this court in In re Estate of Beabout, 136 Ohio St., 412 , 26 N. E. (2d), 211, wherein it is held that where exceptions have been filed to the schedule of debts and overruled by the court and no appeal taken, it is a final determination of the question of allowance of claims as to the party so excepting, and he cannot subsequently relitigate that question by filing exceptions to the account of the administrator.