Case ID: ohio-law-abs_10/html/0376-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICHARDS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRANK v SECURITY-HOME TRUST CO et
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co
    No. 2542.
    Decided June 6, 1931
    Marshall, Melhorn, Marlar & Martin, of Toledo, for Frank.
    Smith, Baker, Effler & Eastman, Toledo, for Security Home Trust Co.
   RICHARDS, J.

It is not claimed that Frank had the stock then with him nor that he did more than make the statement quoted. Frank contends that by reason of this notification to him that he was within the restriction and excluded from building, he was entitled to and did rescind the contract. The difficulty with that position is that the record-contains no evidence tending to show that the representative of The Welles-Bowen Company had any authority to make any such requirement of Frank. Neither did the .restrictions contained in the instrument referred to in the contract signed by Frank have any reference to Jewish people or in any way exclude them from owning or occupying property in the development, nor did the contract which Frank himself signed contain any such restrictions. There being no such restriction and there being no evidence tending to show that the representative of The Welles-Bowen Company had any authority to make such statement, Frank had no right to demand a rescission of the contract.

We find no error in the record to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error and the judgment will be affirmed, the amount due to the bank to be paid upon tender or delivery by it of the deed and stock.

LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.