Case ID: ohio-law-abs_8/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      VICKERY, PJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SWETLAND CO v BARNETT
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
    No. 10426.
    Decided December 23, 1929
    Messrs. Thompson, Hiñe & Flory, Cleveland, for Swetland Co.
    Messrs. Lanza & Litt, Cleveland, for Barnett.
   VICKERY, PJ.

We think the court was in error, — not that it deducted the $175-, because it seems to have been a vacation under the circumstances caused by the action on the part of the plaintiff company in turning off the lights and so in a measure amounted to an eviction by the defendant below, and we find no fault with the court in deducting $175 from the plaintiff’s claim,— but there is no evidence in the record to warrant an entering of a judgment on the counterclaim and, therefore, the court was in error with respect to this $220.06, it being within the power of the court to modify this entry and the facts being fully before us, we modify the judgment by adding to the plaintiff’s claim the $220.06 that was wrongfully deducted from it by the judgment on the counterclaim and affirm the judgment as modified so that the plaintiff will recover $311.17.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.