McDonald v. Henderson

Ohio Court of Appeals

McDonald v. Henderson

187 N.E.2d 194, 116 Ohio App. 173, 22 Ohio Op. 2d 21, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 645

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 14, 1962

Docket6942

StatusPublished

This text of 187 N.E.2d 194 (McDonald v. Henderson) 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

McDonald v. Henderson, 187 N.E.2d 194, 116 Ohio App. 173, 22 Ohio Op. 2d 21, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 645 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Duepy, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the Columbus Municipal Court against the defendants, appellants herein. The action was for the collection of a fee charged for services rendered by the plaintiffs, an architectural firm.

The first assignment of error raises the question of whether *174 the architect may sue to recover a fee for services rendered where he failed to sign all his drawings as a registered architect, and failed to note the serial number of his certificate of qualification to practice. The evidence in the transcript of testimony does show that the plaintiffs were registered architects and did have a certificate of qualification to practice, and we do not believe that Section 4703.12, Revised Code, which reads in part: “Every holder of such certificate or its renewal shall be required to sign all his drawings as a ‘registered architect’ together with the serial number of his certificate of qualification to practice,” would prevent them from suing for services rendered where they failed to sign such drawings.

It follows that it would not be prejudicial error for the court to permit plaintiffs to amend their exhibits, which were previously submitted and entered into evidence, by signing the exhibits as registered architects and with their serial number, which procedure has been questioned as the second assignment of error.

The third assignment of error has to do with the sufficiency of evidence, and the fourth assignment of error was the overruling of the motion for a new trial. We are of the opinion that these two assignments of error should be overruled, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Duefey, P. J., and Bsyawt, J., concur.

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

Duepy, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the Columbus Municipal Court against the defendants, appellants herein. The action was for the collection of a fee charged for services rendered by the plaintiffs, an architectural firm.

The first assignment of error raises the question of whether *174 the architect may sue to recover a fee for services rendered where he failed to sign all his drawings as a registered architect, and failed to note the serial number of his certificate of qualification to practice. The evidence in the transcript of testimony does show that the plaintiffs were registered architects and did have a certificate of qualification to practice, and we do not believe that Section 4703.12, Revised Code, which reads in part: “Every holder of such certificate or its renewal shall be required to sign all his drawings as a ‘registered architect’ together with the serial number of his certificate of qualification to practice,” would prevent them from suing for services rendered where they failed to sign such drawings.

It follows that it would not be prejudicial error for the court to permit plaintiffs to amend their exhibits, which were previously submitted and entered into evidence, by signing the exhibits as registered architects and with their serial number, which procedure has been questioned as the second assignment of error.

The third assignment of error has to do with the sufficiency of evidence, and the fourth assignment of error was the overruling of the motion for a new trial. We are of the opinion that these two assignments of error should be overruled, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Duefey, P. J., and Bsyawt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 N.E.2d 194, 116 Ohio App. 173, 22 Ohio Op. 2d 21, 1962 Ohio App. LEXIS 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-henderson-ohioctapp-1962.