Case Name: GENTSCH v. BEVILLE et al
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-06-18
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 613
Docket Number: No. 4563
Parties: GENTSCH v. BEVILLE et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
No. 641
GENTSCH v. BEVILLE et al
Ohio Appeals, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
No. 4563.
Decided June 18, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in Abstract
PARTITION — No reason to complain — Error would benefit plaintiff in error.
(Note: The opinion fails to state what the alleged errors were and does not state reasons for affirming the judgment.)
Attorneys — Gentsch, Rawson & Kavanagh, F. F. Truhler, J. A. Nieding, for Gentsch; J. B. Oviatt and Tyler & Kursenberger and Schultz and B. C. Boer, for Beville et al.

Opinion:
VICKERY, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Gentsch brought an action in partition against Beville and others in Cuyahoga Common Pleas. A building had been erected on real estate sought to be partitioned. Certain lien holders filed cross-petitions. From the judgment, Wilmont Co. appealed and Gentsch prosecuted error. By agreement Wil-mot Co. was allowed a lien for $500 and the appeal was dismissed. The Guardian Savings and Trust Co. claimed a large sum of money that they had put into the building but Gentsch was favored in most particulars by the entry in the lower court. Itowever, Gentsch was not satisfied and prosecuted fc'or. The Court of Appeals in affirming judgment eld:
1.Mr. Gentsch had no reason to complain. If there is any error anywhere it would be to his benefit and not to his detriment.