Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0183-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HUGHES-, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 232
    SCHWEITZER v. GOUDY
    Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist., Hancock Co.
    No. 226.
    Decided Feb. 18, 1927
    703. LANDLORD & TENANT — Where clause in lease gives landlord, the right to go upon the premises and make such repairs as he sees fit, the tenant thereby cannot have it interpreted so as tor- shift the responsibility to make repairs to the landlord in derogation of the common law.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — A. A. Slayaugh for Schweitzer; John E. Betts for Goudy; all of Findl'ayy:’ •
   HUGHES-, J.

The suit in the Hancock Common Pleas was an action to recover rent due from George Sweitzer as the tenant of Harrison Goudy. The controversy arose over a dispute over the question of whose obligation it was, under the terms of the lease, to repair the floor of the business room occupied by defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the landlord and Schweitzer prosecuted error, the Court of Appeals holding:

1. In the absence of a contract, the landlord is not charged with keeping the leased premises in repair. This the defendant concedes; but he urges an interpretation of the lease which would change the common law rule, and require the landlord to make repairs such as were made by the tenant, and charged to the landlord.

2. The lease has no clause expressly charging the landlord with this duty.

3. The clause found in the lease was that at the expiration of the lease the tenant will yield up the premises in as good condition as they were in* when received by him, natural wear and tear excepted.

_ 4. Another clause gives the landlord the right to go upon the premises and make any needful reapirs he may see fit to make.

5.The interpretation desired by Sweitzer, that under these clauses the responsibility of keeping the premises in repair shifted to Goudy, the landlord, cannot be adopted.

Judgment therefore affirmed.

(Before Judges Crow, Hughes & Justice.)