In re Chinese Temple Restaurant Co.

N.D. Ohio

In re Chinese Temple Restaurant Co.

54 F.2d 945, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1927

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedJune 9, 1931

DocketNo. 21757

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 F.2d 945 (In re Chinese Temple Restaurant Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Chinese Temple Restaurant Co., 54 F.2d 945, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1927 (N.D. Ohio 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, District Judge.

The blank on which is -indorsed the sworn statement of the unpaid sum appears to be a different type of contract from that containing the conditions and executed by the parties. The sworn statement here is not on the instrument, and could be readily removed without mutilation. No reason appears why the statement or affidavit was not placed on the instrument, as required by section 8568, General Code of Ohio. There is nothing in the affidavit that identifies it with the contract executed, except that it is fastened thereto by wire staples and bears the same filing date of the recorder, although neither number nor hour of filing appears on the contract.

That other considerations in the facts were decisive in Columbus Merchandise Co. v. Kline (D. C.) 248 F. 296, does not alter the rule nor leave in doubt the exacting requirements of the Code. Every departure from clear and express provisions enacted for safeguarding against fraud weakens the force of the law and creates exceptions where none are provided or intended. Where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, there should be no need for straining interpretations.

Order of referee confirmed; petition to review dismissed.

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

JONES, District Judge.

The blank on which is -indorsed the sworn statement of the unpaid sum appears to be a different type of contract from that containing the conditions and executed by the parties. The sworn statement here is not on the instrument, and could be readily removed without mutilation. No reason appears why the statement or affidavit was not placed on the instrument, as required by section 8568, General Code of Ohio. There is nothing in the affidavit that identifies it with the contract executed, except that it is fastened thereto by wire staples and bears the same filing date of the recorder, although neither number nor hour of filing appears on the contract.

That other considerations in the facts were decisive in Columbus Merchandise Co. v. Kline (D. C.) 248 F. 296, does not alter the rule nor leave in doubt the exacting requirements of the Code. Every departure from clear and express provisions enacted for safeguarding against fraud weakens the force of the law and creates exceptions where none are provided or intended. Where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, there should be no need for straining interpretations.

Order of referee confirmed; petition to review dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 F.2d 945, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chinese-temple-restaurant-co-ohnd-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack