Case Name: WITHROW et v. SPRAGUE et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-03-29
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 601
Docket Number: No. 2777
Parties: WITHROW et v. SPRAGUE et
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 601–601

Head Matter:
WITHROW et v. SPRAGUE et
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
No. 2777.
Decided March 29, 1926
Attorneys — John D. Ellis and Ed. F. Alexander for Board; Dinsmore, Shohl & Sawyer for Sprague et; all of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
HAMILTON, J.
James Sprague brought an action against the Board of Education in the Hamilton Common Pleas claiming a balance due on a contract for services as janitor in public schools. The Board denied full performance on part of Sprague, claiming it had the right to annul the contract under its terms; and filed a cross petition for its breach.
The Board's answer averred that Sprague expressly waived in a letter, his rights to recover the money. The parties agreed to let the court render judgment for the party entitled thereto; and Sprague had judgment rendered-, in his favor. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:
1. It must be recognized that if the case was heard on the pleadings, the allegations of full performance by Sprague must be taken as true; and that the finding by the Board to the contrary would be purely arbitrary.
2. If the waiver was an offer for payment of the admitted amount due and a compromise of the balance, the Board finding that there was not full performance would be arbitrary, since the record does not show that any compromise was ever effected.
Judgment affirmed.