Case Name: POWELL v. LOEBER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1931-01-26
Citations: 9 Ohio Law Abs. 412
Docket Number: No 10948
Parties: POWELL v LOEBER
Judges: MIDDLETON, P. J. (4th Dist), CROW, J. <3x*d Dist) and FARR, J, (7th Dist) setting.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 9
Pages: 412–412

Head Matter:
POWELL v LOEBER
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No 10948.
Decided Jan 26, 1931
Edward Blythin, Cleveland, for Powell.
H. C. Boyd, Cleveland, for Loeber.
MIDDLETON, P. J. (4th Dist), CROW, J. <3x*d Dist) and FARR, J, (7th Dist) setting.

Opinion:
The facts are stated in the opinion.
CROW, J.
The action in the court below was on a promissory note and the judgment was for the plaintiff on a warrant of attorney contained in the note. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment and tendered an answer containing a number of defenses aff of Which were abandoned at the hearing of the motion, excepting as to the consideration.
The facts stipulated by the parties show that the sole consideration of the note was compensation due a real estate broker who had not been licensed as such pursuant to the statutes in that respect.
Manifestly, under 6373-48 GC, the commission was not recoverable and therefore could not serve as a consideration; consequently'the court was clearly unjustified in overruling the motion to vacate.
For that error, the judgment will be reversed at the costs of defendant in eri;or, and the cause remanded to the Municipal Court for further» proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Middleton, PJ, and-Farr, J, concur.