Legal Opinion
Wayne Building & Loan Co. v. Hoover
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1967No. 40654PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.
Probably because of Read v. Toledo Loan Co. (1903), 68 Ohio St. 280, 67 N. E. 729, it is not contended that Section 5301.01, Revised Code, has not been complied with merely because the notary public who certified the acknowledgment and subscribed his name to the certificate of the acknowledgment was also one of two witnesses who attested the signing of the mortgagor and subscribed his name to the attestation. Admittedly, the mortgage involved in the instant ease was *65signed in the presence of a notary public but the makers thereof did nothing else to indicate their acknowledgment thereof.
The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brownson v. ScanlanTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- McOuatt v. McOuattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Guyer v. Union Trust Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1914
- Read v. Toledo Loan Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1903
- State Ex Rel. State Bridge Commission v. GriffithOhio Supreme Court · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Geygan v. World Savings Bank, FSB (In Re Nolan)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems v. OditaOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Campbell v. KruppOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Hardesty v. Citifinancial, Inc. (In Re Roberts)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2009
- Rhiel v. Huntington National Bank (In Re Phalen)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2011
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.