Fried v. Cohn-Goodman Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Fried v. Cohn-Goodman Co.

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 713, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 833

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 29, 1928

DocketNo. 9160

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 713 (Fried v. Cohn-Goodman Co.) 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

Fried v. Cohn-Goodman Co., 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 713, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 833 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Where the owner of premises leased the same for a period of years and the lease contained a clause permitting the lessee to sublet any or all of the premises, and thereafter the lessee sublet the entire premises to the defendant for the balance of the term, the lease being, in due form and signed by the lessee who became the lessor and the lessee of the new lease, but the same was not acknowledged nor recorded, it was held that the lessor of the new lease, upon notice of the defendant lessee of vacation and abandonment before the end of the term, could not maintain suit in equity to reform the lease, enforce the same and compel acknowledgement by defendant, and for an injunction restraining defendant from disturbing its assets, as acknowledgment by defendant was not necessary, it having, been in the power of plaintiff to acknowledge and record the lease. The court held further that plaintiff had his remedy at law for breach of the contract, being obliged to minimize damages, only so far as possible. .

Opinion by

VICKERY, J.

SULLIVAN, P. J. & LEVINE, J., concur.

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

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Where the owner of premises leased the same for a period of years and the lease contained a clause permitting the lessee to sublet any or all of the premises, and thereafter the lessee sublet the entire premises to the defendant for the balance of the term, the lease being, in due form and signed by the lessee who became the lessor and the lessee of the new lease, but the same was not acknowledged nor recorded, it was held that the lessor of the new lease, upon notice of the defendant lessee of vacation and abandonment before the end of the term, could not maintain suit in equity to reform the lease, enforce the same and compel acknowledgement by defendant, and for an injunction restraining defendant from disturbing its assets, as acknowledgment by defendant was not necessary, it having, been in the power of plaintiff to acknowledge and record the lease. The court held further that plaintiff had his remedy at law for breach of the contract, being obliged to minimize damages, only so far as possible. .

Opinion by

VICKERY, J.

SULLIVAN, P. J. & LEVINE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 713, 1928 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fried-v-cohn-goodman-co-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack