Swing v. Swing

Ohio Court of Appeals

Swing v. Swing

158 N.E. 194, 24 Ohio App. 464, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 146

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 30, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 158 N.E. 194 (Swing v. Swing) 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

Swing v. Swing, 158 N.E. 194, 24 Ohio App. 464, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 146 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The action in the court of common pleas was for partition. All necessary parties were brought in by the attorneys for the plaintiff.

The Miami Savings & Loan Company, a corporation, filed an answer and cross-petition, praying for judgment, and joining in the prayer of the petition.

*465 On December 1, 1924, the court of common pleas rendered a decree foreclosing the equity of redemption in the mortgage against Frederick C. Swing and Nellie 0. Swing, and directing that:

“They shall within 5 days from the entering of this decree, pay or cause to be paid to the clerk of this court costs, * * * and to the Miami Savings & Loan Company the sum of $4,021.23, and that an order issue to the sheriff of Hamilton county, directing him to appraise, advertise, and sell the premises, as upon execution.”

The property was sold under this order of court. No order of partition was ever issued, and, in fact, the partition of the property was abandoned.

A court is not authorized to allow fees to counsel of a mortgagee, when the property is sold in foreclosure.

The same decree will be entered here as in the court below.

Decree of foreclosure.

Buchwalter, P. J., Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur.

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