Legal Opinion

Lutz v. Midland Discount Corp.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1956No. 8179Published

1Per curiam

This is an action by a mortgagor of an automobile against a transferee of the mortgage and note to recover the fair value of the mortgaged automobile which the defendant had sold under the power of sale given to it in the mortgage, but without the mortgagor being given the notice required by Section 1319.07, Bevised Code.

The plaintiff alleged that she had no notice or knowledge of the time or place of sale and that the defendant failed to use due diligence to obtain a fair price for the automobile, and that although the automobile was worth $750, the defendant sold it for $100, to her damage…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hrovat v. Cleveland Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. WatermanOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
  3. Rigney v. Cincinnati Street Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1954
  4. State Ex Rel. Foxall v. CossairtOhio Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Pennington v. First Discount Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API