Queen City Savings & Loan Co. v. Young

37 N.E.2d 620, 68 Ohio App. 524, 34 Ohio Law. Abs. 485, 22 Ohio Op. 164, 1941 Ohio App. LEXIS 740
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 16, 1941
DocketNo 5973
StatusPublished

This text of 37 N.E.2d 620 (Queen City Savings & Loan Co. v. Young) 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
Queen City Savings & Loan Co. v. Young, 37 N.E.2d 620, 68 Ohio App. 524, 34 Ohio Law. Abs. 485, 22 Ohio Op. 164, 1941 Ohio App. LEXIS 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

OPINION

By ROSS, J.

Appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.

A simple question involving the applicability of §11663-1 GC, to the instant situation is presented by this appeal.

Briefly stated, the record develops that in a foreclosure proceeding, although a finding of indebtedness was made as to a second mortgage by the court, no judgment was entered by the court upon such finding. Execution was ordered, however, by the Common Pleas Court upon such finding, but later recalled. This court on appeal sustained the recall of the execution, finding that no judgment had been secured upon which execution could be executed.

Some five years after the finding by the Court of the amount due on the second mortgage, judgment was entered against the mortgagors, and execution upon such judgment is now sought to be enforced.

The claim is that the provisions of §11663-1 GC, prohibit such execution, since the judgment was entered more than two years after the sale of the mortgagors’ property, and the finding of the amount due on the second mortgage.

Although it may have been wise and fitting for the legislature to so provide, it has not done so. The instant case does not present a situation in which a judgment became null and void two years after its entry.

Two years has not elapsed since the entry of the judgment here involved. The finding is not a judgment and was so specifically held in this very case in the former appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

MATTHEWS, PJ. and HAMILTON, J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 N.E.2d 620, 68 Ohio App. 524, 34 Ohio Law. Abs. 485, 22 Ohio Op. 164, 1941 Ohio App. LEXIS 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queen-city-savings-loan-co-v-young-ohioctapp-1941.