Case Name: WHISTLE CO. v. SCHUELER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-06-20
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 566
Docket Number: No. 1037
Parties: WHISTLE CO. v. SCHUELER
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 566–566

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.