Case Name: FAIRBANKS v. RIDGEWAY
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-04-11
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 720
Docket Number: No. 610
Parties: FAIRBANKS v. RIDGEWAY
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
No. 736
FAIRBANKS v. RIDGEWAY
Ohio Appeals, Third District, Marion County
No. 610.
Decided April 11, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in AbstracJ
257. MORTGAGES.
Constructio n of deed as .mortgage — Convey of property by mortgagee — Where a sale is a nullitB broker not entitled-to commission — In an accounting^ mortgagee must be allowed sum spent in investj gating mortgagor’s interest in premises.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
Epitomized Opinion
This was an action by plaintiff to regain titlB to certain prmeises. As the defendant loaned tb§ plaintiff certain money, the plaintiff made a coi¡ veyance of certain property to the defendant security. This conveyance was in the form of deled rather than as a mortgage. During thl pendency of the action, the defendant attempts" to sell the premises. The defendant, in his answel asked for an accounting. The Court of Appeal held:
1. That the written instrument should be coi| strued as a mortgage and not as a deed.
2. That the attempted conveyance by defendaij did not divest plaintiff of his equity of redemptiof
Attorneys — J. W. McCarron, for Fairbanks; Fred L. Carhart, for Ridgeway.
3. As the attempted sale to which plaintiff was not a party was a nullity, a broker's commission thereon did not constitute an item allowable to the defendant in an accounting.
4. That the defendant be reimbursed in the sum of $107.00 as expenses in investigating representations made by plaintiff at the time the loan was made, in accordance with the terms of the agreement.