Carlisle v. Foster (10 Ohio St. 198, 1859)

Brinkerhorr, C. J.

This was not an action for the recovery of money only, nor for the recovery of specific real or personal property; but was an action, in the nature of a bill in chancery, for the enforcement of an express trust, and for an account by the trustee to his cestui que trust. It was, therefore, a matter of discretion in the court below, whether it would submit any questions ■of fact, and if so, what questions, involved in the case, to be tried ¡by a jury. It in fact submitted to the jury but two questions; and ;as the instructions to the jury asked for and refused, had no relevancy *to the questions submitted to the jury, there could be mo error in refusing them, however pertinent they might have been to other parts of the case. This disposes of the first assignment