Berry v. Cleveland Trust Co.

OPINION

By PUNK, PJ.

Was this ruling of the court erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant?

First. It will be noted that plaintiff is in the position of a third person seeking to take advantage of a claimed benefit accruing to it by reason of an alleged agreement between said Berry and said Properties Co., and as said company was not only hoi a party in the trial court but was not a necessary party, said Berry was unable to ask for a reformation of said deed in said action.

Second. An examination of said two letters, which apparently constituted the contract between said Properties Co. and said…