Booher v. LoweBooher v. Lowe
*1 126 errors as- other made has been 3. Examination prejudicial nature.
signed find none of a accomplished-, justice has beén substantial We find that in this case. is affirmed. STEVENS, JJ,
NICHOLS, J, DOYLE and LOWE, AL, Plaintiff-Appellee, BOOHER, ET Defendants- v Appellants. District, Montgomery County. Ohio-Appeals, Second April 30th, 1947. No. 1925. Decided Miller, Dayton, plaintiff-appellee. Jerome T. Dayton, Graham, defendant-appellant. J. Chester By PJ. This is an from the of the Common Pleas Montgomery County, Ohio, affirming Court of Municipal Dayton city Court rendered in favor entry forcible and detainer action. *2 defendants-appellants assign grounds The error, six of categories, first, judgment fall in which two to-wit: that the manifestly against weight evidence; second, is the the of and judgment contrary is that the to law. occupied The evidence that shows the defendants the premises period approximately years for a of two unde'r a tenancy monthly Eighteen month-to-month a of at rental ($18.00) month, per payable advance, beginning Dollars in on day 24th payment the each month. of The as evidence to of rent, including receipt stipulation by the introduced Court, conclusively Common Pleas shows that the defendants usually payment rent, were for arrears the and that April 6, 1946, on premises the date on which the notice to leave the given, paid 24, was the was’ to March 1946. The 18, 1946, April place action was filed on the and took trial on May 3, April 6th, again 1946. evidence shows on The that and April 22, 1946, defendant, by Mary on R. the Lowe sent mail plaintiff money orders, $18.00, payment the each for to for of cashed, rent. These were orders never and were tendered day -to the on the back defendant of trial. The trial held that the defendants court were in default payment for the of rent at the time the-notice to leave the served, premises brought properly the was that action was plaintiff entitled to writ and that the was a of restitution. supports judgment overwhelmingly the The evidence by trial court. this was affirmed On. the Montgomery County, Pleas Court of Ohio. Common defendants-appellants contend that the The trial court only period April from March 24 with the to concerned was paid 1946, 23, was not and found that the rent for that receipt pro- an additional has period, and that because been by stipulation duced, the record introduced into which was pending Court, in the Common matter was Pleas the when period paid, the rent shows for this now was the evidence ordered. should be reversal a opinion, court, True, in its held “the court trial is the April ending 23, 1946, period only over this and not concerned However, following the trial court month.” made no the over delinquency. prior period Even finding any of as to definite finding the rent definite that a so, had made court if trial the 1946, not reverse 24, would paid up this court March until was evidence, find since, the court, of all review after a the trial receipt found payment was for which a the additional that On, 24, trial, evidence paid the March the rent to after it, it, was the and as we view trial court saw the as reviewing the not reverse judgment. will A court entitled to ground the of on the the trial court of wrong premise, if found the it is on court trial was based the otherwise correct. to be money two retention of the held that trial court month, period each, than less one for of $18.00 .orders operate day trial, as did of not on the tender back and the implication by In acceptance of or law an Ap 492, held: Moss, it 72 Oh Pillot v acceptance shown where of rent “No them, evidence, money cashing landlord, holds without payment.” orders for such money for- orders were evi- held instant In the case was dentiary purposes. of such orders not The retention length orders were ten- time. The an unreasonable acceptance facts an Under these trial. dered back at the implied. *3 be will not orders in facts work an Neither do such Finding record the affirmed. no error HORNBECK, JJ, concur. MILLER and FOR REHEARING APPLICATION May 27th, 1947. Decided By THE COURT: rehearing denied no Application new matter has application. been raised HORNBECK, JJ, PJ, MILLER