Case Name: Hill, Appellee, v. Melvin Love Construction Company
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1957-12-18
Citations: 106 Ohio App. 32
Docket Number: No. 5703
Parties: Hill, Appellee, v. Melvin Love Construction Company.
Judges: Beyant and Millee, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 32–34

Head Matter:
Hill, Appellee, v. Melvin Love Construction Company.
(No. 5703
Decided December 18, 1957.)
Messrs. Herbert, Tuttle, Applegate & Britt and Mr. G. Richard O’Neil, for appellee.
Mr. W. Robinson Watters, for appellant.
Motion to certify the record overruled, May 14, 1958. For opinion on motion to strike, see 104 Ohio App., 403.

Opinion:
Petree, P. J.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court in which defendant, appellant herein, makes the following assignments of error:
1. The Court of Common Pleas committed error in refus ing to interpret the contract so as to allow the owner-corporation the right to sell its property to anyone with whom the broker had not negotiated without liability to the broker for a commission.
2. The Court of Common Pleas committed error in failing to apply the fundamental rule of construction that where the provisions of a contract may be reasonably interpreted more than one way, the provisions, as a matter of laxo, must be strictly construed against the party who drew it or had it prepared, and in favor of the party who took no part in its preparation or in the selection of its language.
The Common Pleas Court gave judgment for plaintiff, appellee herein, in the amount of $975. Appellant did not file a bill of exceptions in this court and, therefore, the errors, if any, would be limited to those exhibited by the transcript of the docket, journal entries, and judgment entry. The judgment entry contained a copy of the contract in question together with the findings of facts upon which the judgment was rendered.
The lower court filed a written opinion in the case, which sets out at some length the questions involved and the facts and law upon which its judgment was based.
The contention of the appellant in its second assignment of error is not sustained by the facts. There was no bill of exceptions, and neither the findings of facts nor the lower court's opinion shows who prepared the contract. Without proof we cannot assume who prepared the same; so the appellant has failed utterly to substantiate the second assignment of error. This is true regardless of the soundness of the law cited in support thereof.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties herein; and upon a consideration of the same, the arguments of counsel, and the written findings of facts and opinion of the trial court, we find that the assignments of error of the appellant herein are not well taken. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Beyant and Millee, JJ., concur.