Grant v. Kinney

Ohio Supreme Court

Grant v. Kinney

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 781

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1927

DocketNo. 20589

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 781 (Grant v. Kinney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grant v. Kinney, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 781 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

A holder of a second mortgage instituted proceedings for its foreclosure. Thereafter and while the foreclosure was pending. Grant, a purchaser acquiring the mortgaged premises, verbally agreed with the second mortgagee, [782]*782that, if the latter would dismiss pending suit, pay the cost thereof and credit the second moitgag e notes with interest then accrued thereon, he, Grant, would pay the mortgagee the principal of an overdue mortgage note amounting to $500.00, and would assume the balance of the mortgage indebtedness with interest from the date of the mortgage indebtedness: Held; that such verbal promise made to the mortgagee was an original and not a collateral promise; it was made upon a sufficient consideration subserving a pecuniary purpose involving a benefit to the promisor and was within the statute of frauds.

Judgment affirmed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur.)

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

JONES, J.

A holder of a second mortgage instituted proceedings for its foreclosure. Thereafter and while the foreclosure was pending. Grant, a purchaser acquiring the mortgaged premises, verbally agreed with the second mortgagee, [782]*782that, if the latter would dismiss pending suit, pay the cost thereof and credit the second moitgag e notes with interest then accrued thereon, he, Grant, would pay the mortgagee the principal of an overdue mortgage note amounting to $500.00, and would assume the balance of the mortgage indebtedness with interest from the date of the mortgage indebtedness: Held; that such verbal promise made to the mortgagee was an original and not a collateral promise; it was made upon a sufficient consideration subserving a pecuniary purpose involving a benefit to the promisor and was within the statute of frauds.

Judgment affirmed.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-kinney-ohio-1927.