Baldwin v. Snowden
Ohio Supreme Court
Civil Action. Reserved in the district court of Franklin county. The facts of this ease, as presented by the record, are as follows: The petition and amended petition state, that the defendants, Richard H. Snowden and wife, on the third day of February, 1854, executed to the defendants, Lambert & Co., a mortgage upon certain real estate therein described, to secure the payment of three promissory notes, made by Richard EL Snowden to the defendants, Lambert & Co., all dated…
Read the full summary
Civil Action. Reserved in the district court of Franklin county. The facts of this ease, as presented by the record, are as follows: The petition and amended petition state, that the defendants, Richard H. Snowden and wife, on the third day of February, 1854, executed to the defendants, Lambert & Co., a mortgage upon certain real estate therein described, to secure the payment of three promissory notes, made by Richard EL Snowden to the defendants, Lambert & Co., all dated January 24,1854: one for $1707.92, payable nine months from date; one for $1774.25, payable eighteen months from date,…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott. J.
The demurrer of the plaintiff presents the ques*210tica: cfi the sufficiency of the answer of Mrs. Snowden, as a bar to the plaintiff’s action.
This answer denies the validity as to Mrs. Snowden, of the mortgage, the lien of which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, upon two grounds—
1. Because it was never delivered by her, and
2. Because it was obtained by imposition and in fraud of her rights.
We propose, first to consider the latter branch of the answer.
The facts which constitute the alleged fraud and imposition, are fully and minutely stated in the answer, and directly impeach the truth of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hartley v. FroshTexas Supreme Court · 1851
- McNeely v. RuckerIndiana Supreme Court · 1843
- Jamison v. JamisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Ackert v. PultzNew York Supreme Court · 1849