Case Name: BLUSINSKY v. MULHOLLAND
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-01-22
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 218
Docket Number: No. 4081
Parties: BLUSINSKY v. MULHOLLAND
Judges: (Sayre, P. J., Middleton and Mauck, JJ., of the Fourth District, sitting.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 218–218

Head Matter:
No. 167
BLUSINSKY v. MULHOLLAND
Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
No. 4081.
Jan. 22, 1923
(Sayre, P. J., Middleton and Mauck, JJ., of the Fourth District, sitting.)
PLEADING — Amendment of statement, to conform to proof under 11563 GC., changing an express sum to a reasonable amount.
Error to Cleveland Municipal Court
Attorneys — Ulmer & Bernstein, for Blusinsky; E. M. Waite, for Mulholland.

Opinion:
SAYRE, J.
Epitomized Opinion
This action was brought by Mulholland to recover on an express contract to procure tenants for Blus-insky, who pleaded that B. agreed to pay the usual commission allowed real estate brokers, which he averred to be four per cent.
At the close of the testimony M. asked and was given leave to amend his claim by stating "that -a reasonable commission for a broker who procures a term lease for an' owner of real estate in Cleveland, for commercial rooms and for residential apartments, is four per cent of the rentals, up to $20,000." This changed the consideration pleaded from an express stipulation to such reasonable amount as M. should receive for his services.
Held:
1. This change related only to the matter of consideration for the services and is not such a substantial change as violates the spirit of the statute as to amendments, 11563 GC.
2. When the amendment was made there was evidence in the-record showing what would be a reasonable commission for the services performed.