
    No. 592
    PHILLIPS v. STEIN
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 7539.
    Decided May 23, 1927.
    Judges Shields, Lemert and Houck, 5th Dist., sitting.
    923. PLE ADIN GS — Amendments—Courts, in the interest of justice may permit amendments to pleadings to conform to the testimony; and in absence of evidence to the contrary, a reviewing court will assume that the court was justified by the evidence, in permitting the amendment.
    First Publícate- tnis Opinion
    Attorneys — H. H. Henry for Phillips; Klein & Klein for Stein; all of Cleveland.
   TIÜU OK, 0.

Morris Stein brought an action against Kate Phillips in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas. The action was tried upon a second amended petition. Judgment was awarded to Stein, error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded- the case for a new trial. Thereupon a third amended petition was filed and the cause was heard to the trial judge, and judgment was rendered- in favor of Stein.

Error was prosecuted and it was argued that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in permitting Stein to amend his third amendéd petition by interlineation, in order to conform with the testimony. The Court of Appeals held:—

1. Authority granted to courts to permit amendments of pleadings, is provided for in 11363 GC.

2. In furtherance of justice, the court may amend any pleading, process or proceedings,; by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of the party, or a mistake in any other respect. Boehmke v. Company, 88 OS. 163.

3. “To allow amendments in the interest of justice is broad and in absence of evidence' to the contrary, a reviewing court will assume' that the court was justified by the evidence in permitting the amendment.” Wicker v. Messinger, 22 OCC. 713.

Judgment affirmed.

(Shields, PJ. and Lemert, J., concur.)  