Rollman & Son's Co. v. Huguely

Ohio Court of Appeals

Rollman & Son's Co. v. Huguely

69 N.E.2d 663, 78 Ohio App. 286, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 84

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 1946

Docket6673

StatusPublished

This text of 69 N.E.2d 663 (Rollman & Son's Co. v. Huguely) 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

Rollman & Son's Co. v. Huguely, 69 N.E.2d 663, 78 Ohio App. 286, 56 Ohio Law. Abs. 84 (Ohio Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

The Municipal Court of Cincinnati rendered judgment for *85 the plaintiff for $30.00 upon an account. The Common Pleas Court affirmed the judgment and the case is now in this Court on appeal on questions of law.

It is claimed that there is no substantial evidence of the account. However, two exhibits were introduced in evidence without objection — one showing application for a charge account and the other a ledger account. It may be that the bill of exceptions does not show all the preliminary proof necessary to make an account competent, but, if so, objection should have been made at the time, so that the plaintiff would have had the opportunity to supply the omission, if it was in its power to do so.

There is evidence that this charge account was established by and with the approval of the defendant, and that he ratified it.

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

HILDEBRANT, PJ, MATTHEWS & ROSS, JJ, concur in opinion & judgment.

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