
    ERROR.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    December 19, 1908.]
    Giffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
    Kauther v. Vigransky et al.
    Judgment not Reversed for Error in Law if "Verdict Sustained by Evidence. ’
    Errors of law, if any occurred during the trial of the case, are not prejudicial, where the verdict is fully sustained by the evidence.
    Error to common pleas court.
    The plaintiff was the owner of property on Martin street, Cincinnati, and alleged that the defendants represented to him that they had a purchaser for $1,000, and the property was sold at that figure. Plaintiff alleged that he subsequently learned that the real price paid to defendants for the property was $1,200, and he sued for the $200 difference.
    
      Walter Schmitt, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Prescott Smith, for defendant in error.
   SMITH, J.

Upon examination of the record in above ease the court is of the opinion that the verdict is fully sustained by the evidence. The evidence does not substantiate the claim of plaintiff in error as set up in the petition, that defendants were his agents and that fraud was practiced upon him. On the contrary, he emphatically denies such relationship and practically admits the claim of defendants in error.

Any errors of law that may exist, if in fact any such do exist, are therefore not prejudicial to plaintiff in error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Giffen and Swing, JJ., concur.  