brief of plaintiff error in Ohio

1936However the case last above cited did not deter the Court of Appeals of the fifth appellate district from deciding contradictorily without mention of the case. 41 Oh Ap 477 ( 11 Abs 597 ), 180 NE 269 .’ Nothing I have here said is intended to relate in any manner to procedure in either the trial court or a Court of Appeals after December 31, 1935.

1936However the case last above cited did not deter the Court of Appeals of the fifth appellate district from deciding contradictorily without mention of the case. 41 Oh Ap 477 ( 11 Abs 597 ), 180 NE 269 .’ Nothing I have here said is intended to relate in any manner to procedure in either the trial court or a Court of Appeals after December 31, 1935.

1935As sustaining the contention of plaintiff in error that the facts and circumstances shown in this case were such that the inclusion of plaintiff’s property in “Residential B” district violates the Fourteenth Amend *284 ment of the United States Constitution, we are cited by plaintiff in error to the following three cases: (1) Mehl v. Stegner, Dir. of Dept. of Bldgs., 38 Ohio App., 416 , 175 N. E., 712 (syllabus): “The inclusion of private land in a residential district under a zoning ordinance, with resulting inhibition of its use for business and industrial buildings to the serious damage of

1935As sustaining the contention of plaintiff in error that the facts and circumstances shown in this case were such that the inclusion of plaintiff’s property in “Residential B” district violates the Fourteenth Amend *284 ment of the United States Constitution, we are cited by plaintiff in error to the following three cases: (1) Mehl v. Stegner, Dir. of Dept. of Bldgs., 38 Ohio App., 416 , 175 N. E., 712 (syllabus): “The inclusion of private land in a residential district under a zoning ordinance, with resulting inhibition of its use for business and industrial buildings to the serious damage of

1935As sustaining the contention of plaintiff in error that the facts and circumstances shown in this case were such that the inclusion of plaintiff’s property in “Residential B” district violates the Fourteenth Amend *284 ment of the United States Constitution, we are cited by plaintiff in error to the following three cases: (1) Mehl v. Stegner, Dir. of Dept. of Bldgs., 38 Ohio App., 416 , 175 N. E., 712 (syllabus): “The inclusion of private land in a residential district under a zoning ordinance, with resulting inhibition of its use for business and industrial buildings to the serious damage of

1935As sustaining the contention of plaintiff in error that the facts and circumstances shown in this case were such that the inclusion of plaintiff’s property in “Residential B” district violates the Fourteenth Amend *284 ment of the United States Constitution, we are cited by plaintiff in error to the following three cases: (1) Mehl v. Stegner, Dir. of Dept. of Bldgs., 38 Ohio App., 416 , 175 N. E., 712 (syllabus): “The inclusion of private land in a residential district under a zoning ordinance, with resulting inhibition of its use for business and industrial buildings to the serious damage of

1931Co. v. Hichey, 29 Ohio App., 399 , at page 401, 163 N. E., 310, 311 , in passing on the qualification of witnesses to give opinion evidence on damages, stated: *274 “ ‘Some of the witnesses, called to give opinion evidence, did not appear well qualified to give such opinion evidence; but this affected the weight, and not the admissibility, of the evidence. “ ‘It is the rule that a reasonable amount of discretion may be exercised by the trial court in permitting witnesses to give opinion evidence, and, unless evidence so admitted appears to have been prejudicial, a verdict will not be set aside

1931Co. v. Hichey, 29 Ohio App., 399 , at page 401, 163 N. E., 310, 311 , in passing on the qualification of witnesses to give opinion evidence on damages, stated: *274 “ ‘Some of the witnesses, called to give opinion evidence, did not appear well qualified to give such opinion evidence; but this affected the weight, and not the admissibility, of the evidence. “ ‘It is the rule that a reasonable amount of discretion may be exercised by the trial court in permitting witnesses to give opinion evidence, and, unless evidence so admitted appears to have been prejudicial, a verdict will not be set aside

1930It is conceded in the brief of plaintiff in error that the same “was granted by the Commission in good faith, to care for a supposed emergency;” but it is claimed such grant was made upon the misrepresentation of the Michigan-Ohio Bus Lines, Inc.; that such being the case, the temporary order, and the final order also, should be revoked on the authority of Westhoven v. Public Utilities Commission, 112 Ohio St., 411 , 147 N. E., 759 , being a case where a certificate was revoked upon the ground that it had been obtained by “false statements and upon misrepresentations. ’ ’ It is the violation o

1930It is conceded in the brief of plaintiff in error that the same “was granted by the Commission in good faith, to care for a supposed emergency;” but it is claimed such grant was made upon the misrepresentation of the Michigan-Ohio Bus Lines, Inc.; that such being the case, the temporary order, and the final order also, should be revoked on the authority of Westhoven v. Public Utilities Commission, 112 Ohio St., 411 , 147 N. E., 759 , being a case where a certificate was revoked upon the ground that it had been obtained by “false statements and upon misrepresentations. ’ ’ It is the violation o

1930Nor does the case of Industrial Commission v. Russell, 111 Ohio St., 692 , 146 N. E., 305 , sustain the contention of plaintiff in error here, for in that case Russell became totally blind, and, quoting from the brief of plaintiff in error in the instant case, “The sight having been destroyed by his being required continuously to look into a most powerful ultra-violet ray * # * this caused a disease of the optic nerve and the loss of sight.” Therefore again the Supreme Court of Ohio was passing upon the question of “disease” — a disease which caused blindness, the approach of which extended ov

1930Nor does the case of Industrial Commission v. Russell, 111 Ohio St., 692 , 146 N. E., 305 , sustain the contention of plaintiff in error here, for in that case Russell became totally blind, and, quoting from the brief of plaintiff in error in the instant case, “The sight having been destroyed by his being required continuously to look into a most powerful ultra-violet ray * # * this caused a disease of the optic nerve and the loss of sight.” Therefore again the Supreme Court of Ohio was passing upon the question of “disease” — a disease which caused blindness, the approach of which extended ov

1927We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and find no adequate reason advanced therein to justify such conclusion, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in List v. Co-operative Assn., 114 Ohio St., 361 , 151 N. E., 471 , that cooperative associations of the character of plaintiff are lawful, and that contracts like that here in question are not in contravention of constitutional provisions or statutory enactments.

1927We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and find no adequate reason advanced therein to justify such conclusion, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in List v. Co-operative Assn., 114 Ohio St., 361 , 151 N. E., 471 , that cooperative associations of the character of plaintiff are lawful, and that contracts like that here in question are not in contravention of constitutional provisions or statutory enactments.