Joseph Bartholomew

“ While it is true that trial courts should exercise great caution in taking a case from the jury on the facts, and while it should only be done in cases where a verdict for the opposite party must properly be set aside on application, yet the question of the existence in the record of any legal evidence—not a scintilla, merely—upon which a verdict for the party holding the burden of proof could be based, is always a question of law ”

“ When the defendant, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, moves for a verdict, and such motion is overruled, and the defendant elects to put in his testimony, it is only reasonable that he should be required to renew his motion upon all the evidence, if he deem the defect not supplied ”

“ It will serve no good purpose to set out the testimony. No express authority is claimed. Plaintiff relies solely upon implied authority arising from the acts of the pretended agent, Newhauser. Admitting that Newhauser did borrow money from another party, ostensibly for the use of defendant—and that is far from certain on the record—and admitting that such loan was paid by check drawn by Newhauser in defendant’s name, still there is no legal evidence that defendant knew of such transactions, or of any facts or circumstances from which he could reasonably infer the same. ”