
    No. 135
    LEE LASH CO. v. TOLEDO TRANS. CO.
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
    No. 1775.
    Decided Jan. 24, 1927
    488. EXECUTORY CONTRACTS — Where one party to an executory contract requests that it be cancelled, the other party must cease performance and its remedy would be for what damages it might have by reason of the cancellation of the contract; and the remedy is not on an account.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — Fritsche, Kruse & Winchester for Lash Co.; John C. Cochran and J. E. Far-ber for Transfer Co.; all of oTledo.
   CULBERT, J.

The Lee Lash Co. brought an action against the Toledo Transfer Co. in the Toledo Municipal Court on an account for advertising material in the way of placing an advertisement in one of the local theatres, “for any or all of 104 weeks.” After a year’s service had been rendered, the Transfer Co. cancelled the contracts by letter; but the plaintiff refused to cancel and continued the service up to the end of the period for which it claims the contracts provided. .

Judgment was rendered in favor of the Transfer Co. and the Lucas Common Pleas affirmed this judgment. Error proceedings were prosecuted to reverse the judgments below and the Court of Appeals held:

1. This action is based upon executory contracts and is for services rendered and advertising-' furnished after the direction for cancellation by defendant had become effective.

2. It is a general rule that where a contract is executory, a party has the power to stop the performance on the one side by explicit direction to that effect, subjecting himself to such damages as will compensate the other party for beim? stopped in the performance on his pari, at Ahat stage in the execution of the contract. The party thus forbidden, cannot thereafter go on an thereby increase the damages and recover such increase from the other party.

3. Hence when notice not to proceed with the work under the contracts is given, the only remedy plaintiff in this case would have would be for what damages it might have suffered by reason of the cancellation of the contracts on part of the defendant, and it is not an action on account.

Judgment affirmed.

(Richards & Williams, JJ., concur.)  