Case Name: QUEEN CITY SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v. YOUNG et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1941-06-16
Citations: 34 Ohio Law Abs. 485
Docket Number: No 5973
Parties: QUEEN CITY SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v YOUNG et
Judges: MATTHEWS, PJ. and HAMILTON, J., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 34
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
QUEEN CITY SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v YOUNG et
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No 5973.
Decided June 16, 1941
Charles Rodner, Cincinnati, for appellee, George Young.
William R. Collins, Cincinnati, and David F. Naylor, Cincinnati, for appellants, Alphonse Stiens and Bertha Stiens.

Opinion:
OPINION
By ROSS, J.
Appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.
A simple question involving the applicability of §11663-1 GC, to the instant situation is presented by this appeal.
Briefly stated, the record develops that in a foreclosure proceeding, although a finding of indebtedness was made as to a second mortgage by the court, no judgment was entered by the court upon such finding. Execution was ordered, however, by the Common Pleas Court upon such finding, but later recalled. This court on appeal sustained the recall of the execution, finding that no judgment had been secured upon which execution could be executed.
Some five years after the finding by the Court of the amount due on the second mortgage, judgment was entered against the mortgagors, and execution upon such judgment is now sought to be enforced.
The claim is that the provisions of §11663-1 GC, prohibit such execution, since the judgment was entered more than two years after the sale of the mortgagors' property, and the finding of the amount due on the second mortgage.
Although it may have been wise and fitting for the legislature to so provide, it has not done so. The instant case does not present a situation in which a judgment became null and void two years after its entry.
Two years has not elapsed since the entry of the judgment here involved. The finding is not a judgment and was so specifically held in this very case in the former appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
MATTHEWS, PJ. and HAMILTON, J., concur.