Thomas v. Williamson Heater Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Thomas v. Williamson Heater Co.

161 N.E. 28, 27 Ohio App. 137, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 497, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1178, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 560

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 1927

Docket2991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 N.E. 28 (Thomas v. Williamson Heater 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

Thomas v. Williamson Heater Co., 161 N.E. 28, 27 Ohio App. 137, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 497, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1178, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 560 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, PJ.

This' action grows out of the purchase and sale of a heating furnace for the home of the plaintiff, Thomas. The petition alleges that the plaintiff entered into a contract in writing with the defendant, for the purchase of a heater.

The petition alleges that the contract provided for the installation of the furnace in the home of the plaintiff and also, the installation of all pipes and other things necessary for the efficient operation of the furnace. The contract also contained certain warranties. The plaintiff had paid the purchase price of the furnace, and had done all things on his part to be performed, but the furnace failed to comply with the warranty contained in the contract. The answer admitted the warranty and the payment of consideration, and denied the other allegations of the petition. A jury was waived, and the Court found for the defendant on the grounds that it was an action for recission and that the plaintiff had failed to give proper notice.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas, and held as follows:

1. It is the law that the nature of the action must be gathered from the pleadings. Raymond v. Ry. Co., OS. 271; Fredrickson v. Nye, 110 OS. 483; Shell Co. v. Albertson, 99 OS. 11; Lust v. Bank, 114 OS. 312.

2. The pleadings show clearly that the action was one for a breach of contract. The mere fact that the damage claimed is in the. same amount as the purchase price does not alter the cause of action.

Judgment reversed.

(Cushing and Buchwalter, JJ., concur).

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

HAMILTON, PJ.

This' action grows out of the purchase and sale of a heating furnace for the home of the plaintiff, Thomas. The petition alleges that the plaintiff entered into a contract in writing with the defendant, for the purchase of a heater.

The petition alleges that the contract provided for the installation of the furnace in the home of the plaintiff and also, the installation of all pipes and other things necessary for the efficient operation of the furnace. The contract also contained certain warranties. The plaintiff had paid the purchase price of the furnace, and had done all things on his part to be performed, but the furnace failed to comply with the warranty contained in the contract. The answer admitted the warranty and the payment of consideration, and denied the other allegations of the petition. A jury was waived, and the Court found for the defendant on the grounds that it was an action for recission and that the plaintiff had failed to give proper notice.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas, and held as follows:

1. It is the law that the nature of the action must be gathered from the pleadings. Raymond v. Ry. Co., OS. 271; Fredrickson v. Nye, 110 OS. 483; Shell Co. v. Albertson, 99 OS. 11; Lust v. Bank, 114 OS. 312.

2. The pleadings show clearly that the action was one for a breach of contract. The mere fact that the damage claimed is in the. same amount as the purchase price does not alter the cause of action.

Judgment reversed.

(Cushing and Buchwalter, JJ., concur).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.E. 28, 27 Ohio App. 137, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 497, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1178, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-williamson-heater-co-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack