Francis v. Tildesley Coal Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Francis v. Tildesley Coal Co.

32 N.E.2d 54, 32 Ohio Law. Abs. 544, 19 Ohio Op. 54, 1940 Ohio App. LEXIS 1183

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1940

DocketNo. 5786

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.E.2d 54 (Francis v. Tildesley Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis v. Tildesley Coal Co., 32 N.E.2d 54, 32 Ohio Law. Abs. 544, 19 Ohio Op. 54, 1940 Ohio App. LEXIS 1183 (Ohio Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BY THE COURT:

We have examined the briefs and record in this case, and find that the cause of action was based upon the refusal of the defendant to permit the plaintiff to exercise his right to withdraw certain mortgage bonds from the control of a certain ré-organization committee, and restore them to the custody of the defendant as pledgee, whereby the re-organization committee became authorized to and did exchange said bonds for bonds issued by a corporation that purchased the mortgaged property. That was a violation of the plaintiff’s rights as a pledgor. Glidden v Merchants Nat’l. Bank, 53 Oh St 588; Nelson v First Nat’l. Bank, 69 Fed. 798.

The judgment is for the difference between the value of the new bonds and the amount that would have been received from the proceeds of sale of the mortgaged property had the bonds not been exchanged.

We are of the opinion that the defendant violated the contractual rights of the plaintiff in refusing to co-operate with the plaintiff in withdrawing the bonds from the control of the reorganization committee, and that as a direct result the plaintiff lost the right to his bonds, and was required to accept the new bonds.

We are also of the opinion that the court adopted the correct measure of damages.

We find no substantial error in the record, prejudicial to the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

HAMILTON, PJ., MATTHEWS & ROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

BY THE COURT:

We have examined the briefs and record in this case, and find that the cause of action was based upon the refusal of the defendant to permit the plaintiff to exercise his right to withdraw certain mortgage bonds from the control of a certain ré-organization committee, and restore them to the custody of the defendant as pledgee, whereby the re-organization committee became authorized to and did exchange said bonds for bonds issued by a corporation that purchased the mortgaged property. That was a violation of the plaintiff’s rights as a pledgor. Glidden v Merchants Nat’l. Bank, 53 Oh St 588; Nelson v First Nat’l. Bank, 69 Fed. 798.

The judgment is for the difference between the value of the new bonds and the amount that would have been received from the proceeds of sale of the mortgaged property had the bonds not been exchanged.

We are of the opinion that the defendant violated the contractual rights of the plaintiff in refusing to co-operate with the plaintiff in withdrawing the bonds from the control of the reorganization committee, and that as a direct result the plaintiff lost the right to his bonds, and was required to accept the new bonds.

We are also of the opinion that the court adopted the correct measure of damages.

We find no substantial error in the record, prejudicial to the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

HAMILTON, PJ., MATTHEWS & ROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.E.2d 54, 32 Ohio Law. Abs. 544, 19 Ohio Op. 54, 1940 Ohio App. LEXIS 1183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-tildesley-coal-co-ohioctapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack