Moore v. Ogden
Ohio Supreme Court
Error. Reserved in the District Court of Brown county. The action in the court below, was brought December 23, 1866, by the plaintiff, as administrator of one Pelix Coonce. It was founded on a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage, rendered in 1843, in a suit then pending in the common pleas of Brown county, wherein said Pelix Coonce was complainant, and the present defendant was the respondent.
Read the full summary
Error. Reserved in the District Court of Brown county. The action in the court below, was brought December 23, 1866, by the plaintiff, as administrator of one Pelix Coonce. It was founded on a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage, rendered in 1843, in a suit then pending in the common pleas of Brown county, wherein said Pelix Coonce was complainant, and the present defendant was the respondent. The proceeding to foreclose, was founded on the notes and mortgage of the defendant to Coonce. Pelix Coonce died about 1864, and plaintiff' -was appointed his administrator. The petition in this case…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
1. This motion was predicated on the idea that the decree of foreclosure was a judgment, within the *432meaning of section 422 of the code of practice, which became dormant, if execution was not sued out for five years.
That section 422 of the code does not apply to decrees or judgments for the sale of specific property, but has sole reference to judgments for money, which are to be enforced by execution, was decided in Beaumont v. Renick, 24 Ohio St. 456.
Under the chancery practice, and until the amendment of section 306 of the code, when a decree of foreclosure was made, the suit remained on the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ludlow v. O'NeilOhio Supreme Court · 1876