Mosher v. Cook United, Inc.
Decision Date | 11 June 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79-1129,79-1129 |
Citation | 62 Ohio St.2d 316,405 N.E.2d 720,16 O.O.3d 361 |
Parties | , 16 O.O.3d 361 MOSHER, Appellant, v. COOK UNITED, INC.; Hudson Food Warehouse Corp., Appellee, et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Christopher T. Cline and Duane F. Lantz, Columbus, for appellant.
Walter J. Siemer, Columbus, for appellee.
Because appellant either elected to waive, or failed to make other arguably relevant legal challenges, we are confronted here with but one proposition, that being whether appellant, as a business invitee, possessed an irrevocable license to remain on appellee's premises so long as he behaved in an orderly manner. Our answer is that he did not possess such a privilege.
A license has been defined by this court as "an authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon another's land, without possessing any estate therein." Rodefer v. Pittsburg, O. V. & C. Rd. Co. (1905), 72 Ohio St. 272, 281, 74 N.E. 183, 185-186, citing Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sanford's Chancery 72. One who possesses a license thus has the authority to enter the land in another's possession without being a trespasser. Rodefer, supra. The parties do not dispute that appellant's initial presence on appellee's property was authorized by virtue of a license. The conflict concerns the revocability of the license. * If the license was revocable at the will of appellee, appellant became a trespasser at the point of revocation and his basis for relief is unfounded.
5 Restatement of Property 3133-34, Section 519, speaks to revocation of licenses. That section provides:
Appellee was, therefore, entitled to revoke appellant's license for any purpose, reasonable or not, unless any of subsections (2) through (4) were applicable. The record is clear that none of these subsections were applicable. Accordingly, upon the theory propounded by appellant before this court, appellee was legally justified in demanding that appellant leave the premises. Since appellant has failed to establish a basis for relief, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
HOFSTETTER, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for LOCHER, J.
The majority, in my opinion, has minimized the issue herein simply to the single proposition of whether appellant, as a business invitee, possessed an irrevocable license to remain on appellee's premises so long as he behaved in an orderly manner.
From the majority opinion concerning this proposition, I must dissent. The appellant, in response to "check and compare" advertising, drove a substantial number of miles in anticipation of buying groceries valued at several hundreds of dollars. The issue, as I see it, is not whether the business invitee had an irrevocable license to remain on appellee's premises on the terms noted in the majority opinion, but whether, having been invited to do exactly what he was doing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Joseph Bros. Co. v. Dunn Bros., Ltd.
...Assn. v. Cambridge Condominium Assn. , 139 Ohio App.3d 328, 333, 743 N.E.2d 954 (11th Dist.2000), citing Mosher v. Cook , 62 Ohio St.2d 316, 317, 405 N.E.2d 720 (1980). "If the parties intend for an agreement to be permanent, the license is said to be coupled with an interest." Dalliance Re......
-
Cincinnati Entertainment Assoc., Ltd. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
...N.E.2d 1333, 1338; Smith v. Gilbraith (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 428, 434, 599 N.E.2d 798, 802. 19 See Mosher v. Cook (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 316, 317, 16 O.O.3d 361, 362, 405 N.E.2d 720, 721. 20 See Ferguson v. Strader (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 622, 627, 641 N.E.2d 728, 731; Columbus S. Power Co. v......
-
Helfrich v. Foor Family Invs.
...[and] is privileged to continue the use permitted by the license to the extent reasonably necessary to realize upon his expenditures." Mosher, supra at 318. We find that the jury received sufficient evidence from which it could conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that Foor was entit......
-
Schlabach v. Kondik
...has the authority to enter the land in another's possession without being a trespasser." Varjaski quoting Mosher v. Cook United, Inc. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 316, 317, 405 N.E.2d 720 (citation omitted). {¶ 30} There are two types of licenses: revocable licenses which are mere privileges to do......