Legal Opinion

George H. Olmsted & Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1928No. 20825PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.

The sole question considered by this court is whether the standard mortgage clause is to be construed as a covenant or whether it is to be construed as a condition. If the language of the clause is plain and unambiguous it must be given its plain and unambiguous meaning, and no occasion or justification for its construction by the court arises. If it is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible of two or more constructions, then it becomes the duty of the court to construe it most strongly against the party preparing the contract and selecting the language, and most favorably toward the party…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Great American Mutual Indemnity Co. v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. ThomasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1898
  3. Trust Co. of St. Louis County v. Phoenix InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1919
  4. Ormsby v. Phenix Ins.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
  5. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. UptonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Gabriele v. ReaganOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. Myers v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
  3. McClorey v. Hamilton County Board of ElectionsOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Barry Brewer v. WrightMississippi Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Stoddart v. BlackSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932

13 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