Legal Opinion

Suburban Home Mortgage Co. v. Hopwood

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 8, 1947No. 3867PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By MILLER, J.

Submitted on application by the plaintiff-appellee for a rehearing.

We have again given this entire matter our most careful attention and are of the opinion tliat we carried the “clean hands” doctrine too far, as the Courts seem to recognize a distinction between illegal contracts based upon a considera*597tion that is “malum prohibitum” from those where it is “malum in se.” Our opinion correctly stated the law as to the latter but not as to the former.

The Real Estate Brokers’ Act defines obligations of, prescribes offenses and penalties against the broker or salesman of real…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smith v. BachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. American National Insurance Co. v. TaborTexas Supreme Court · 1921
  3. United Bank & Trust Co. v. JoynerArizona Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jones v. Hyatt Legal Services (In Re Dow)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1991
  2. Suburban Home Mortgage Co. v. HopwoodOhio Court of Appeals · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API