Frank v. Security-Home Trust Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Frank v. Security-Home Trust Co.

178 N.E. 273, 40 Ohio App. 386, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 376, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 450

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1931

Docket2542

StatusPublished

This text of 178 N.E. 273 (Frank v. Security-Home Trust 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

Frank v. Security-Home Trust Co., 178 N.E. 273, 40 Ohio App. 386, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 376, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 450 (Ohio Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

It is not claimed that Frank had the *377 stock then with him nor that he did more than make the statement quoted. Frank contends that by reason of this notification to him that he was within the restriction and excluded from building, he was entitled to and did rescind the contract. The difficulty with that position is that the record-contains no evidence tending to show that the representative of The Welles-Bowen Company had any authority to make any such requirement of Frank. Neither did the .restrictions contained in the instrument referred to in the contract signed by Frank have any reference to Jewish people or in any way exclude them from owning or occupying property in the development, nor did the contract which Frank himself signed contain any such restrictions. There being no such restriction and there being no evidence tending to show that the representative of The Welles-Bowen Company had any authority to make such statement, Frank had no right to demand a rescission of the contract.

We find no error in the record to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error and the judgment will be affirmed, the amount due to the bank to be paid upon tender or delivery by it of the deed and stock.

LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

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

RICHARDS, J.

It is not claimed that Frank had the *377 stock then with him nor that he did more than make the statement quoted. Frank contends that by reason of this notification to him that he was within the restriction and excluded from building, he was entitled to and did rescind the contract. The difficulty with that position is that the record-contains no evidence tending to show that the representative of The Welles-Bowen Company had any authority to make any such requirement of Frank. Neither did the .restrictions contained in the instrument referred to in the contract signed by Frank have any reference to Jewish people or in any way exclude them from owning or occupying property in the development, nor did the contract which Frank himself signed contain any such restrictions. There being no such restriction and there being no evidence tending to show that the representative of The Welles-Bowen Company had any authority to make such statement, Frank had no right to demand a rescission of the contract.

We find no error in the record to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error and the judgment will be affirmed, the amount due to the bank to be paid upon tender or delivery by it of the deed and stock.

LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.E. 273, 40 Ohio App. 386, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 376, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-security-home-trust-co-ohioctapp-1931.