Case ID: ohio-cc-dec_18/html/0841-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SWING, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APPEAL — MORTGAGES.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    March 2, 1903.]
    Jelke, Swing and Giffen, JJ.
    
      George C. Fleurot v. Clara B. Fletcher et al.
    Right to Appeal Foreclosure oe Deed Given as Security for Loan.
    An action to have a deed, given to secure a loan, declared a mortgage and the mortgage foreclosed, is purely equitable, there being no right to a jury, and a motion to dismiss an- appeal should be overruled. [For other cases in point, see 6 Cyc. Dig., “Appeal,” §§ 222-229. — Ed.]
    Drausin Wulsin and B. B. Dale, for plaintiff.
    Maxwell & Ramsey, for defendants:
    Aets.of performance of part promise. Schneider v. Curran, 10 Cira. Dec. 239 (19 R. 224) ; Armstrong v. Kattenhorn, 11 Ohio 265; Shahan v. Swan, 48 Ohio St. 25 [26 N. E. Rep. 222; 29 Am. St. Rep. 517]; Stoddert v. Tuck, 4 Md. Ch. 475; Bathbun v. Bathbun, 6 Barb. 98; Bowen v. Warner, 1 Pinn. (Wis.) 600; 1 Jones, Mortgages Sec. 328.
    Conditional sale or mortgage. Conway v. Alexander, 11 U. S. (7 Cranch.) 218, 237 [3 L. Ed. 321]; Slutz v. Desenberg, 28 Ohio St. 371; 1 Jones, Mortgages See. 677; 1 Pingrey, Mortgages See. 205; 4 Kent’s Commentaries 145; 3 Kerr, Real Prop. 282; 2 Washburn, Real Prop. *482; Howel v. Price, 1 P. Wms. 291; Henry v. Bell, 5 Vt. 393; Scott v. Fields, 7 Watts 360; Baum v. Tonkin, 110 Pa. St. 569 [1 Atl. Rep. 535]; Schweyer v. Walbert, 190 Pa. St. 334 [42 Atl. Rep. 694]; Coleman V. Van Bensselaer, 44 How. Pr. 369; Salisbury v. Philips, 10 Johns. 57; Coleman v. Miller, 8 Dec. Re. 179 (6 Bull. 200); Hardinger v. Ziegler, 8 Dec. Re. 214 (6 Bull. 326) ; Bobinson v. Cropsey, 2 Edw. Ch. 137; Goodman v. Grierson, 2 B. & B. 274.
    Right of appeal. Baird v. Kirtland, 8 Ohio 21 • Marshall v. Steivart, 17 Ohio 356; Miller v. Stokely, 5 Ohio St. 194; Slutz v. Desenberg, 28 Ohio St. 371; Wilson v. Giddings, 28 Ohio St. 554; Wright v. Bates, 13 Vt. 341; Shaw V. W(Abridge, 33 Ohio St. 1; Kemper v. Campbell, 44 Ohio St. 210; Hughes v. Davis, 40 Cal. 117; 1 Jones, Mortgages 214, Sec. 339; First Nat. Bank v. Chandelier Co. 9 Circ. Dec. 807 (17 R. 443) ; Foley v. Kirk, 33 N. J. Eq. 170; Stinchfield v. Milliken, 71 Me. 567; Hogel v. Lindall, 10 Mo. 483; Ketchum, A. <& P. By. v. St. Louis, 101 U. S. 306 [25 L. Ed. 999]; Bowland V. Entrekin,- 27 Ohio St. 47; Ells-worth v. Holcomb, 28 Ohio St. 66; Fleming v. Kerkendall, 31 Ohio St. 568; Emerick v. Armstrong, 1 Ohio 513; Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; Bassett v. Daniels, 10 Ohio St. 617.
    
      
       Affirmed, without report, Fleurot v. Fletcher, 73 Ohio St. 381.
    
   SWING, J.

The petition in this case alleged that plaintiff loaned defendants $15,000 for a term of three years, receiving as security a deed in fee ■simple to certain real estate, and giving a lease back to the defendants; that the said loan had not been repaid, and that the deed was in fact a mortgage; and praying for a foreclosure and sale of the said property.

The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case should be overruled. Plaintiff’s cause of action is purely equitable. No right to a jury existed. The right to have the deed declared a mortgage and the right to have the transaction declared a loan for $15,000 was wholly within the jurisdiction of a court of equity, and could not be tried to a jury. Whether or not a case is appealable depends upon the relief sought, and here it is equitable.

Jelke and Giffen, JJ., concur.