Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0566-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 592
    WHISTLE CO. v. SCHUELER
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd District, Franklin County
    No. 1037.
    Decided June 20, 1923
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    LEASE — Estoppel to. enforce forfeiture provision in lease.
    (Note: The opinion fails to state what the forfeiture provisions of the lease are.)
    Attorneys — J. G. Westwater, for Whistle Co.; Pugh & Pugh, for Schueler.
   PER CURIAM.

Epitomized Opinion

Action to enforce forfeiture provision of a lease. Whistle Co. expended money in making alterations on the property to the knowledge of Schueler, the owner, who did not object, and received rent after the material for alterations was brought on premises, and also after alterations were fully made. Court of Appeals held:

1.Schueler is estopped from enforcing the forfeiture provisions of the lease because he knowingly allowed alterations to be made without objecting thereto and accepted rent during the alterations.