Case Name: Rollman & Sons Co., Appellee, v. Huguley, Appellant
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1946-06-24
Citations: 78 Ohio App. 286
Docket Number: No. 6673
Parties: Rollman & Sons Co., Appellee, v. Huguley, Appellant.
Judges: Hildebrant, P. J., Matthews and Ross, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Rollman & Sons Co., Appellee, v. Huguley, Appellant.
(No. 6673
Decided June 24, 1946.)
Mr. Cedric Vogel, for appellee.
Mr. Harry Falk, for appellant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The Municipal Court of Cincinnati rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $30 upon, an account. The Common Pleas Court affirmed the judgment and the case is now in this court on appeal on questions of law.
It is claimed that there is no substantial evidence of the account. However, two exhibits were introduced in evidence without objection — one showing apr plication for a charge account and the other a ledger account. It may be that the bill of exceptions does not show all the preliminary proof necessary to make an account eompeteiit, but, if so, objection should have been made at the time, so that the plaintiff would have had the opportunity to supply the omission, if it was in its power to do so.
There is evidence that this charge account was established by and with the approval of the defendant, and that he ratified it.
For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Hildebrant, P. J., Matthews and Ross, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.