Legal Opinion

Mutual Finance Co. v. Politzer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 1970No. 68-711PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.

In this case, it is conceded that the plaintiff-mortgagee failed to comply with the requirements of Section 1319.07, Revised Code, as to notice.

In Cities Service Oil Co. v. Burkett (1964), 176 Ohio St. 449, 200 N. E. 2d 314, this court held that a chattel mortgagee, who fails to comply with the notice requirements of Section 1319.07, Revised Code, is precluded from collecting from the chattel mortgagor a deficiency on the indebtedness secured by the chattel mortgage.

However, plaintiff contends that the agreement, evidenced by the written agreement of September 3,1965, may in effect operate as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gholson v. SavinOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Blanchard v. GregoryOhio Supreme Court · 1846
  3. Hampshire County Trust Co. v. StevensonOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Mutual Finance Co. v. PolitzerOhio Court of Appeals · 1968

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. LototskyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. First National Park Bank v. Snellen M. Johnson and Ven SavageCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
  3. First Interstate Bank of Nevada v. ShieldsNevada Supreme Court · 1986
  4. MacK Financial Corp. v. ScottIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Shawmut Worcester County Bank, N.A. v. MillerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API