Case Name: SIMONOSKIS v. BROTHERTON
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-10-19
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 748
Docket Number: No. 442
Parties: SIMONOSKIS v. BROTHERTON
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 748–748

Head Matter:
No-. 978
SIMONOSKIS v. BROTHERTON
Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist., Allen Co.
No. 442.
Decided Oct. 19, 1925
923'. PLEADINGS—It is within the discretion of the Court to grant leave to amend a petition if the terms are reasonable.
Attorneys—Blank and Blank for Simonoskis; Cable and Brotherton for Brotherton; all of Lima.

Opinion:
WARDEN, J.
C. J. Brotherton brought this action in the Allen Common Pleas to recover $810.50, attorneys fees, upon an alleged contract with a partnership composed of John Simonoskis and John H. Nichols. Simonoskis moved a non-suit on the ground that the partnership being for an illegal purpose, could not support a contract of employment, whereupon, at Brother-ton's request, the court granted him leave to amend his petition to show that the contract was entered into with Simonoskis to defend Nichols from criminal liability.
The Common Pleas court rendered judgment for Brotherton upon his amended petition, and Simonoskis prosecuted error excepting to the permission given Brotherton to amend his petition. The Court of Appeals held:
1. Simonoskis made no request for continuance and no statement was made by him that he was taken by surprise.
2. It was within the discretion of the Court to permit Brotherton to amend his petition upon reasonable terms.
3. As Simonoskis made no request for continuance, no error was committed by the court below in permitting Brotherton to amend his petition.
Judgment affirmed.