[Cite as Jamison Well Drilling, Inc. v. Pfeifer, 2011-Ohio-521.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

CRAWFORD COUNTY 

 

JAMISON WELL DRILLING, INC., CASE NO. 3-10-17 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

 v. 

ED PFEIFER, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. 

 

Appeal from Crawford County Municipal Court 

Trial Court No. 09-CVF-00077 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Wm. Travis McIntyre for Appellant 

David R. Cory for Appellee 
Case No. 3-10-17 

-2- 

WILLAMOWSKI, J. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Jamison Well Drilling, Inc. (“Jamison”) brings this 

appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court of Crawford County awarding it 

judgment in the amount of Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ($970.00) against 

defendant-appellee Ed Pfeifer (“Pfeifer”). For the reasons set forth below, the 

judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} In August of 2007, Jamison and Pfeifer entered into a contract in 

which Jamison would drill a well for Pfeifer. Pfeifer would pay Jamison Four 

Thousand One Hundred Thirty Dollars ($4,130.00) for this service and the 

supplies. The Ohio Department of Health requires that all wells have a minimum 

of 25 feet of casing. Due to problems with the well, Jamison only placed 11 feet 

of casing in the drilled well. However, Jamison completed the log documents 

indicating that the well contained 27 feet of casing. The well was then tested for 

bacteria by the Crawford County Health Department. The well failed the test. 

Jamison then proceeded to make alterations to the well in an attempt to pass the 

test. The alterations were unsuccessful and the well continued to fail the water 

tests. Eventually the Ohio Department of Health was called to investigate the 

well. The investigation revealed that the well casing length did not match the log 

and was not in compliance. As a result of the noncompliance, the Ohio 

Department of Health required that the well be abandoned and sealed. 
Case No. 3-10-17 

-3- 

{¶3} On January 23, 2009, Jamison filed a suit in the Municipal Court of 

Crawford County to recover $4,933.00 for the drilling of the well. Pfeifer filed his 

answer on March 19, 2009. A hearing was held on the matter on August 27, 2009. 

On January 29, 2010, the magistrate entered a decision in favor of Jamison in the 

amount of $970.00. Jamison filed its objections to the magistrate’s decision on 

March 18, 2010. On May 24, 2010, the trial court entered its judgment overruling 

the objections and adopted the decision of the magistrate. Jamison appeals from 

this judgment and raises the following assignment of error 

The magistrate in the above-captioned case ignored a straight 

forward signed agreement between [Jamison] and [Pfeifer] for 

services relative to a water well and granted judgment solely for 

a tank ignoring the remainder of the items of material and labor 

agreed upon between the parties. 

{¶4} In the sole assignment of error, Jamison argues that the trial court’s 

judgment is not supported by the evidence because the magistrate ignored 

additional costs incurred by Jamison and contracted to by the parties. “Judgments 

supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential 

elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.” Licking & Knox Community Mental Heath & 

Recovery Bd. V. T.B., 10th Dist. No. 10AP454, 2010-Ohio-3487, ¶4 quoting C.E. 

Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 576. 
Case No. 3-10-17 

-4- 

{¶5} Here, the trial court reviewed the magistrate’s decision. In doing so, 

the trial court made the following findings: 

The parties in this case entered into a contract in August of 2007 

in which the Plaintiff was to drill a well for the Defendant for 

Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty and 00/100 Dollars 

[$4,130.00]. There were additional charges and discounts 

applied to this figure which resulted in the Plaintiff seeking Four 

Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-three and 00/100 Dollars 

[$4,933.00]; 

Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the Ohio 

Department of Health determined that the well was not in 

compliance with the State law and must be sealed. Due to this 

fact, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the Plaintiff is 

not entitled to the full contract price. 

Despite not being entitled to a full contract price, the Plaintiff 

installed certain material on the Defendant’s property. A review 

of “Exhibit B” (an invoice provided to the Defendant by the 

Plaintiff), reveals that a 400 gallon tank was installed by the 

Plaintiff. The cost of this tank was Nine Hundred Seventy and 

00/100 Dollars [$970.00]. The Court concludes that the 

Magistrate determined that while the Plaintiff was not entitled to 

his full contract price, it would be unfair to allow the Defendant 

to keep the tank without paying for it under the concept of 

unjust enrichment. 

May 24, 2010 Judgment Entry, 3. Basically the trial court determined that since 

Jamison’s actions caused the well to be in noncompliance and then took additional 

steps to hide this fact, Jamison is responsible for the well having to be abandoned 

and sealed. Although Pfeifer assumed the risk that the well would be unusable 

due to low production of water, he contracted for a well that would comply with 

all statutory and administrative requirements. This well had to be abandoned 
Case No. 3-10-17 

-5- 

because it did not comply with Ohio law. There was no evidence presented that 

Pfeifer assumed the risk that the well would have to be abandoned due to 

noncompliance. Thus, Jamison is not entitled to recover for the labor and 

materials as set forth in the contract as the contract was not completed as intended. 

{¶6} However, the trial court concluded, as did the magistrate, that Jamison 

should be permitted to recover the cost of the storage tank which Pfeifer was able 

to use. The value of the tank was set forth in Exhibit B which was admitted into 

evidence. Pfeifer testified that he was using the tank. There is competent, 

credible evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court. 

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching its decision and 

the assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶7} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Crawford County is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur. 

/jnc