
    FAILURE OF PROOF AS TO AGENCY.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    Kauther v. Vigransky et al.
    Decided, December 19, 1908.
    
      Error — Not 'Material, When — ’Verdict Sustained by Evidence — Alleged Agency in the Sale of Real Estate — Claim of Fraud not Supported.
    
    Errors of law, if any occurred during the trial of the case, are not prejudicial where the verdict is fully sustained by the evidence.,
    
      Walter Schmitt, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Prescott Smith, contra.
    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.
    Smith, J.; Swing, P. J., and Giffen, J., concur.
   Upon examination of the record in -above case -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.  