In Ketcham v. Miller (1922), 104 Ohio St. 372, 136 N.E. 145., two lessees of a building, Miller and Williams, had sued Ketcham, their lessor, for "unlawfully, willfully, wantonly and maliciously" breaching the lease and evicting the lessees. The lessees sought the value of the lease as damages. At trial, evidence was adduced tending to establish that Ketcham had waived the breach of the conditions that she had relied upon for the forfeiture, and that she had leased the premises to others at a "greatly increased rental" and had covenanted to give possession to such parties at a time before the expiration of the Miller and Williams leases. Moreover, Ketcham had "connived" against the lessees "to bring about a forfeiture of the lease" and "to regain possession." The trial court in Ketcham treated the case as a tort action and allowed the jury to award punitive damages. The supreme court held that this was error, after determining that the "gravamen of the complaint" was for breach of a contract. In arriving at this conclusion, the supreme court focused on the language the lessees had used to state their claim, including their request for damages to provide them with the benefit of their bargain. Absent from the pleading was any request for personal or property damage. The court held under these circumstances that the words "willfully, wantonly, and maliciously" were not enough to transform that action from one in contact to one in tort. The court recognized, however, that the ultimate facts of the case might justify pleading a claim in tort, but that the gravamen of the complaint as pleaded was for breach of a contract.