Courtland Building Co. v. Blumenthal

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Courtland Building Co. v. Blumenthal

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 834

DecidedMarch 8, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 834 (Courtland Building Co. v. Blumenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courtland Building Co. v. Blumenthal, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 834 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

MARX, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Dale leased to Blumenthal two ajdoining store-l ooms with the basements underneath for a drug stoi e and Dale agreed to make certain alterations to combine the two stores. When these alterations voso eomp’eted Blumenthal took possess’on but pro- ¡ coded to make other alterations which he claimed La’e.had failed to make. This action was brought to <m:o:n the making of these repairs for Biumen-ih::: by Courtland Building Company. The lease provided, that lessee would make no alterations or additions without the consent of the owner, and lessee also agreed not to commit waste.

In making permanent the restraining order the Court of Appeals held: - - -

1. Dale substantially performed the contract regarding the improvements. Enlarging the opening in the'brick wall, changing the main entrance doors, cutt'ng transoms, and changing the glass front of a building are all acts of waste.

2. Where the landlord makes improvements in premises as a condition precedent to the commencement of the leasehold, the occupation without objection by the tenant of the premises amounts to a waiver by the tenant of the sufficiency of the improvements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARX, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Dale leased to Blumenthal two ajdoining store-l ooms with the basements underneath for a drug stoi e and Dale agreed to make certain alterations to combine the two stores. When these alterations voso eomp’eted Blumenthal took possess’on but pro- ¡ coded to make other alterations which he claimed La’e.had failed to make. This action was brought to <m:o:n the making of these repairs for Biumen-ih::: by Courtland Building Company. The lease provided, that lessee would make no alterations or additions without the consent of the owner, and lessee also agreed not to commit waste.

In making permanent the restraining order the Court of Appeals held: - - -

1. Dale substantially performed the contract regarding the improvements. Enlarging the opening in the'brick wall, changing the main entrance doors, cutt'ng transoms, and changing the glass front of a building are all acts of waste.

2. Where the landlord makes improvements in premises as a condition precedent to the commencement of the leasehold, the occupation without objection by the tenant of the premises amounts to a waiver by the tenant of the sufficiency of the improvements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtland-building-co-v-blumenthal-ohsuperctcinci-1923.