Case Name: HARMON v. PILLO et al
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-03-28
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARMON v. PILLO et al
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 443–443

Head Matter:
No. 430
HARMON v. PILLO et al
Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist., Mahoning County
Decided March 28, 1924
147. BILLS AND NOTES — Where one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss shall fall on the party who makes it possible for the wrongful act to be committed.
547. FORGERY — Changing written transfer on mortgage is not, unless done with fraudulent intent.
. Attorneys — W. W. Zimmerman, J. B. Morgan and Moore, Barnum & Hammond, for Harmon; J. H. George, J. M. Modarelli, S. M. Thompson and Charles Vaughn, contra; all.of Y oungstown.

Opinion:
POLLOCK, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio «Law Abstract
In a foreclosure action Weasner and Millen each claimed to be the owner of the same note secured by mortgage. Pilio executed a note payable to Hawk for $2500, secured by mortgage. The mortgage was properly recorded. Later Hawk sold and transferred the mortgage to Millen and a written transfer was placed on both the note and mortgage. The transfer on the mortgage was never recorded.
Subsequently Millen delivered the note and mortgage to Hawk to be exchanged for another note and motgage. Hawk sold the note and mortgage to Weasner and erased the name of Millen from the transfer on the note and mortgage and inserted the name of Weasner, who recorded the transfer of the mortgage. On appeal it was held:
1. The mere changing of the written transfer is not forgery; it must be done with fraudulent intent and in transferring the note and mortgage Hawk did not change the intent for which these papers were delivered to him.
2. Granting that it was a forgery where one of two innocent parties must suffer, the party who made it possible for the wrongful act to be committed must lose.
Judgment in favor of Weasner.