Union Trust Co. v. Lessovitz
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LEMERT, PJ.
Plaintiff in error claims that they understood that they were to get a first mortgage and they got a first mortgage. It does not necessarily follow by that fact alone that they are entitled to subrogation as prayed for. In the absence of an assignment it does not necessarily follow that the plaintiff is entitled to subrogation upon the facts as disclosed . by the record as to any understanding it may have had at the time of the cancellation of the two mortgages. The record shows that The Union Trust Company advanced money to pay off these two old mortgages, not relying upon any…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rice v. WintersNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Canton Morris Plan Bank v. MostOhio Court of Appeals · 1932