Bohunek v. Smith
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LEMERT, PJ.
The defendants claim that the work of Feb. 2, 1928, had no relation to the original contract which had long before expired. The work which w,as done on Feb. 2, 1928, was a small repair job for which no charge was made, on plaintiff’s theory that he could connect it with the contractual obligation of guarantee for one year after installation.
If this bill for repair work had been charged to defendants, they would no doubt have been required to pay for it, but it is not the basis for the lien claimed herein which is entirely based on the work done raider the contract some fifteen…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Buchanan v. SeldenNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Higgins Manufacturing Co. v. HinigOhio Court of Appeals · 1930
3Cited by5 opinions
- McGarry & Sons, Inc. v. Constr. Resources One, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
- Swensson v. CarltonWashington Supreme Court · 1943
- Walter v. BrothersOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
- Rigberg v. Narduc Development Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
- Gebhart-Wuichet Lumber Co. v. LaneOhio Court of Appeals · 1934