Taylor v. Hayes

Ohio Court of Appeals

Taylor v. Hayes

153 N.E. 760, 21 Ohio App. 507, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 231, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 248

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 1925

Docket1528

StatusPublished

This text of 153 N.E. 760 (Taylor v. Hayes) 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

Taylor v. Hayes, 153 N.E. 760, 21 Ohio App. 507, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 231, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 248 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

YOUNG, J.

This action was commenced in the Lucas Common Pleas by Birchard Hayes to recover a balance due on two unpaid promissory notes and to foreclose a mortgage on certain lots. Hayes alleged that Henry C. Taylor claimed a lien or interest in said premises, and prayed that he be compelled to assert same. Taylor then set up his lien and cross petition for an amount paid by him at a delinquent tax sale, which, together with taxes and assessments, amounts to $2479.90. Taylor averred that in May 1919, he received the auditor’s delinquent land deed on said prefnises, and in March 1924 *232 the Common Pleas Court held the deed to he invalid; but that court expressly held that it did not undertake to determine the question of the lien.

Attorneys—P. M. Dotson for Taylor; M. C. Seeley and E. P. Buckenmyer for Hayes; all of Toledo.

Demurrers were filed to the cross petition by Hayes, and a defendant Bank on the ground that the action was not brought within statutory time, which was 6 years, and they were sustained by the court, who dismissed the answer and cross petition of Taylor, and entered final judgment for Hayes. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. That the sale did not prove invalid .until the court had declared it so on March 19, 1924, at which time the Statute of Limitations began to run.

2. Whatever right Taylor has by way of lien is purely statutory and under 11222 GC, 5724 GC and 2880 Revised Statutes he is entitled to recover the amount paid for said lots, together with taxes and assessments, and interest on each payment from the time it was made. Elmwood Place v. Schanzle, 91 OS 357, cited.

Judgment of the lower court reversed and case remanded with instructions ta overrule demurrers.

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

YOUNG, J.

This action was commenced in the Lucas Common Pleas by Birchard Hayes to recover a balance due on two unpaid promissory notes and to foreclose a mortgage on certain lots. Hayes alleged that Henry C. Taylor claimed a lien or interest in said premises, and prayed that he be compelled to assert same. Taylor then set up his lien and cross petition for an amount paid by him at a delinquent tax sale, which, together with taxes and assessments, amounts to $2479.90. Taylor averred that in May 1919, he received the auditor’s delinquent land deed on said prefnises, and in March 1924 *232 the Common Pleas Court held the deed to he invalid; but that court expressly held that it did not undertake to determine the question of the lien.

Attorneys—P. M. Dotson for Taylor; M. C. Seeley and E. P. Buckenmyer for Hayes; all of Toledo.

Demurrers were filed to the cross petition by Hayes, and a defendant Bank on the ground that the action was not brought within statutory time, which was 6 years, and they were sustained by the court, who dismissed the answer and cross petition of Taylor, and entered final judgment for Hayes. Error was prosecuted and the Court of Appeals held:

1. That the sale did not prove invalid .until the court had declared it so on March 19, 1924, at which time the Statute of Limitations began to run.

2. Whatever right Taylor has by way of lien is purely statutory and under 11222 GC, 5724 GC and 2880 Revised Statutes he is entitled to recover the amount paid for said lots, together with taxes and assessments, and interest on each payment from the time it was made. Elmwood Place v. Schanzle, 91 OS 357, cited.

Judgment of the lower court reversed and case remanded with instructions ta overrule demurrers.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.E. 760, 21 Ohio App. 507, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 231, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-hayes-ohioctapp-1925.