Houck v. Kaplan

Ohio Court of Appeals

Houck v. Kaplan

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 554, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1629

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 1923

DocketNo. 4546

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 554 (Houck v. Kaplan) 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

Houck v. Kaplan, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 554, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1629 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Appeal from Cuyahoga Common Pleas. Houck sued to foreclose a mortgage against Kaplan, and Feighan Realty Investment Company was made a party defendant, as having a lien on the property. The company failed to file an answer or cross-petition. Judgment was taken by Houck, a decree entered and the property sold without disposing of the company’s interest. Lutton bought the property and sold it to Drexmore Realty and Investment Company. Thereafter the Feighan Company filed a cross-petition setting up its lien and asking for a resale of the property. Upon a rehearing-the trial court dismissed the cross-petition. From this judgment Feighan Co. appealed. The Court of Appeals held:

1. If the Feighan Company had not been made a party it could file an .original petition setting up its claim and have a resale of the property. As the company’s mortgage is a lien upon the property it can set up its rights by a cross-petition in the original action or by filing an original petition.

2. If the. court had found and adjudicated the lien of the Feighan Company or held that they did not have a lien and were barred, the situation would be otherwise; but. the instant case comes under the íule of 68 OS. 523.

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

VICKERY, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Appeal from Cuyahoga Common Pleas. Houck sued to foreclose a mortgage against Kaplan, and Feighan Realty Investment Company was made a party defendant, as having a lien on the property. The company failed to file an answer or cross-petition. Judgment was taken by Houck, a decree entered and the property sold without disposing of the company’s interest. Lutton bought the property and sold it to Drexmore Realty and Investment Company. Thereafter the Feighan Company filed a cross-petition setting up its lien and asking for a resale of the property. Upon a rehearing-the trial court dismissed the cross-petition. From this judgment Feighan Co. appealed. The Court of Appeals held:

1. If the Feighan Company had not been made a party it could file an .original petition setting up its claim and have a resale of the property. As the company’s mortgage is a lien upon the property it can set up its rights by a cross-petition in the original action or by filing an original petition.

2. If the. court had found and adjudicated the lien of the Feighan Company or held that they did not have a lien and were barred, the situation would be otherwise; but. the instant case comes under the íule of 68 OS. 523.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 554, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houck-v-kaplan-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack