
    No. 663
    SELBARLAETNER v. UHMANN
    Ohio Appeals, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
    No. 5442.
    June 22, 1923
    166. ERROR.
    (1) Scintilla rule (172) not applicable when motion was made for judgment for defendant — (2) Judgment of lower court affirmed.
    Vickery, Sullivan and Levine, JJ.
    Error to Municipal Court of Cleveland , Epitomized Opinion
    A’tornrvff — White. Brewer fr Curtiss, for Selbar-laetner; D. B. Stone and D. R. Hurtz, for Uhmann.
   BY THE COURT

Through a mistake certain property was transferred to Uhman and his wife jointly although the imennon of the parties was to convey to the wife alone. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence in Mu-’vcipal Court the defendant moved for judgment for the defendant which motion was overruled. Error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals which held:

1. The scintilla rule has no app’ication in this case, it being simply a question of whether the judgment rendered was supported by the evidence.

•/ W» oto unable to sav tha+ rna-»-uru<- tou_ dered in the lower court is not supported by sufficient evidence.  