Green v. Ramage
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in Muskingum county. The facts are these: Ramage had the legal title to lot No. 14, and an equitable title to lot 39, ir. the town of Zanesville. He conveyed by mortgage, recorded October 10th, lot 14 to Wilson. He also assigned the title bond, by which he held lot 39, to Wilson to secure the same debt secured by the mortgage.
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in Muskingum county. The facts are these: Ramage had the legal title to lot No. 14, and an equitable title to lot 39, ir. the town of Zanesville. He conveyed by mortgage, recorded October 10th, lot 14 to Wilson. He also assigned the title bond, by which he held lot 39, to Wilson to secure the same debt secured by the mortgage. He conveyed by mortgage, recorded October 21, to Green, lot 14, and to Hillier, lot 39 by mortgage recorded October 23d The bill is filed by Green for the purpose, among other things, of compelling Wilson to exhaust lot 89 before…
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, J.
If there were but the two mortgages on the property, Wilson’s and Green’s, Green would without doubt be entitled to the relief which he claims. In Story’s Equity, vol. 1, sec. 633, the rule on the subject of marshaling securities is stated thus: “ The general principle is, that if one party has a lien on, or interest in two funds for a debt, and another party has a lien on, or interest in one only of the funds for another debt; the latter has a right in equity to compel the former to resort to the other fund, in the first instance, for satisfaction, if that course is necessary for the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jennings v. Ohio National BankLucas Circuit Court · 1894