Case Name: PERO et v. MILLER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-10-22
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 731
Docket Number: No. 210
Parties: PERO et v. MILLER.
Judges: (Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 731–731

Head Matter:
PERO et v. MILLER.
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Sandusky Co.
No. 210.
Decided Oct. 22, 1928.
A. V. Bauman, Fremont, for Pero.
James G. Hunt, Fremont, for Miller.

Opinion:
RICHARDS, J.
In view of these facts, it can be of little importance that the lease was defectively executed and not recorded.
The lease contains a renewal clause in the following language:
"Said second party shall have the right to renew this lease for five years provided first party shall have been given written notice at least six months before April 80, 1927."
Pursuant to the terms of the above renewal clause the lessees mailed to the lessor on August 31, 1926, a letter postpaid, notifying him that they wanted the extension of five years as specified in the lease. The lessor denies receiving this notice, but from the evidence it is apparent that he did receive the letter and has forgotten the fact.
The original lease expired April 30, 1927. The lessees continued to pay rent regularly thereafter, monthly in advance, and the lessor to receive and accept the same until January 3, 1928, on which date he notified the tenants that they would have to vacate. Nevertheless they did in fact pay rent regularly thereafter to April 30, 1928, and such rent was received and accepted by the lessor, with knowledge oí the renewal notice.
It is urged that the lease being defectively executed, a holding over and the payment and receipt of rent after the expiration of the lease would only operate as a renewal for one year, in analogy to cases in which leases are defectively executed and have no provision for a renewal. The renewal clause distinguishes this case from cases of that character. While the lease was defectively executed and not recorded, _ it did nevertheless constitute a valid and enforceable contract between the parties. There is no magic about the word "lease." The instrument had a valid consideration and specific provisions, and was executed by parties competent to contract. Treating it as a contract for a lease, the instrument clearly bound the parties to a renewal for a period of five years.
Raitz v. Dow, 10 C. C., N. S., 249; Gross v. Clauss, 6 Ohio App., 140; Schloss v. Brown, et al., 13 Ohio App., 294.
A decree will be entered for the plaintiffs as prayed for.
(Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.)