Ertl v. Fabian

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ertl v. Fabian

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 703, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 838

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 29, 1928

DocketNo. 9610

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (Ertl v. Fabian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ertl v. Fabian, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 703, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 838 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

What the evidence might show how far the plaintiff relied upon the representations of the defendant, of course, could not appear at this stage of the lawsuit, but we apprehend that if a person, an owner of an apartment house, for the purpose of procuring a purchaser, should fill that apartment house with dead heads and say to the prospective buyer that it was rented and the rental was $283.00 a month, when as a matter of fact it was not anything to speak of and the tenants moved out as soon as the apartment house was sold, that such a representation would be a representation of fact upon which a right of rescission could be based.

We are supported in that view by the decision of the Court of Appeals of the Second District in the case of Nelson v. Buck, reported in Volume 6 of The Ohio Law Abstract, page 279, May 5, 1928, but aside from this it seems almost incredible but that a person deceived by such misrepresentations should not have relief.

Of course, what the evidence will show in this case we do not know, but we think the petition stated a cause of action, and for that reason the judgment of the Common Pleas Court will be reversed and the cause remanded to the Common Pleas Court with directions to overrule the objection to the admission of testimony, or, in other words, to overrule the demurrer and try the case upon its merits.

(Sullivan, P.J., and I .ovine, J., concur.)

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

VICKERY, J.

What the evidence might show how far the plaintiff relied upon the representations of the defendant, of course, could not appear at this stage of the lawsuit, but we apprehend that if a person, an owner of an apartment house, for the purpose of procuring a purchaser, should fill that apartment house with dead heads and say to the prospective buyer that it was rented and the rental was $283.00 a month, when as a matter of fact it was not anything to speak of and the tenants moved out as soon as the apartment house was sold, that such a representation would be a representation of fact upon which a right of rescission could be based.

We are supported in that view by the decision of the Court of Appeals of the Second District in the case of Nelson v. Buck, reported in Volume 6 of The Ohio Law Abstract, page 279, May 5, 1928, but aside from this it seems almost incredible but that a person deceived by such misrepresentations should not have relief.

Of course, what the evidence will show in this case we do not know, but we think the petition stated a cause of action, and for that reason the judgment of the Common Pleas Court will be reversed and the cause remanded to the Common Pleas Court with directions to overrule the objection to the admission of testimony, or, in other words, to overrule the demurrer and try the case upon its merits.

(Sullivan, P.J., and I .ovine, J., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 703, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ertl-v-fabian-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack