Dodd v. Bartholomew
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Licking county. In January, 1876, Frederick Schuler and his wife conveyed a certain lot in the town of Newark to Charles A. Clark, and at the same time the latter with his wife Sarah, to secure a part, $325, of the purchase-money, executed and delivered a mortgage on the property to the vendors.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Licking county. In January, 1876, Frederick Schuler and his wife conveyed a certain lot in the town of Newark to Charles A. Clark, and at the same time the latter with his wife Sarah, to secure a part, $325, of the purchase-money, executed and delivered a mortgage on the property to the vendors. The mortgage was duly executed and acknowledged; but, by a'mistake of the scrivener in drafting it, Charles A. Clark was described in the granting, defeasance, and testatum clauses as Charles B. Clark; and his wife, Sarah Clark, though properly described in the granting…
1Opinion of the CourtMinshall, J.
The claim of the defendant in error, that he is entitled to a priority on the Schuler mortgage over that of Dodd, is placed on two grounds.
1. That the judgment assigned to him by the Schulers carried with it their lien for the purchase-money of the mortgaged property, o'f which, ho claims, Dodd had notice.
2. That the Schuler mortgage is, without any reformation by the court, a valid one. Being persuaded that the latter claim is correct, it is unnecessary to consider the former one-.
It is a well settled principle, applicable to the construction of deeds and other instruments, that all their…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- White v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1846