Court Opinion

ID: 9815879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:29:42.543809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:39.426369
License: Public Domain

(Decided October 15, 1958.)
On Applications for rehearing.

Per Curiam.

This cause is before the court upon the applications of the plaintiff, appellant herein, and the defendants, The Basic Construction Materials, Division of New York Coal Company, and The Portsmouth Times for rehearing.
The chief contentions in support of the applications for rehearing are: (1) that the court erred in its original decision and judgment in reforming the mortgage to include lot No. 147; (2) that the court erred in granting judgment to H & N Construction and Blake Brothers on its cross-petition; (3) that the court erred in determining that the judgment liens of the Portsmouth Times, The Basic Construction Materials, and the Jackson Sand & Mining Company, are inferior to the judgment and claims of the plaintiff and H & N Construction and Blake Brothers in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of lot No. 147; and (4) that the court erred in the assessment of costs. These contentions will be considered in the order stated.
(1) An examination of the record clearly discloses that lot No. 147 was omitted from the mortgage by mutual mistake; that neither the mortgagor nor mortgagee knew of the omission until the time of trial in the Common Pleas Court; and that both *125the mortgagor and mortgagee agreed that it was their intention to include that lot in the description of the property in the mortgage. There is no merit in this contention.
(2) The original judgment entry is erroneous and inconsistent with the decision of this court in that the entry recites that the defendant, appellee herein, the H & N Construction, and Blake Brothers were granted a personal judgment against William H. Smith and the Piketon Development Corporation on their cross-petition. Since there was no issuance or service of summons on Smith or the Piketon Development Corporation, there could he no judgment taken on this cross-petition and this court so held in our decision on the authority of Southward v. Jamison, 66 Ohio St., 290, 64 N. E., 135. However, on the equitable principle as announced in Preston, Trustee, v. Brown, 35 Ohio St., 18, this cross-petition was treated as a claim for compensation, in equity, for valuable improvement upon the land. After considering the evidence we reached the same conclusion as the trial court, and compensation in the amount of the improvement on the land was awarded accordingly, but not in the form of a personal judgment as recited in the original journal entry.
(3) Upon further consideration of the priority of the claims, we find it necessary and proper to make some changes in the original entry. Plaintiff’s mortgage was dated February 2, 1955. The mortgage was not corrected to include lot No. 147 until August 28, 1957, in the trial court. During the time intervening the three small judgment creditors perfected their liens on all lots, including lot No. 147. The correction of the mortgage to include lot No. 147 became effective when the correction was made, which was August 28, 1957. Clements v. Doerner, 40 Ohio St., 632. The equitable award to H & N Construction and Blake Brothers for improvement of the property became effective on the date such award was made in the trial court, which was August 28, 1957. Therefore, The Portsmouth Times, Basic Construction Materials, and the Jackson Sand & Mining Company are entitled to priority in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of lot No. 147 over both the plaintiff and H & N Construction and Blake Brothers, and these three creditors are also entitled to priority in the distribution of the proceeds of the *126sale of lots Nos. 121 and 146 over the equitable award of compensation to H & N Construction and Blake Brothers, the liens of these three creditors having been perfected prior to the date of such award. Plaintiff’s mortgage lien on lots Nos. 121 and 146 is prior to the claims of the three small creditors, such mortgage lien having been acquired prior to the dates of the judgments.
(4) Upon reconsideration of the assessment of costs, in our opinion, the costs of the entire action in both the Court of Common Pleas and this court should be assessed against the plaintiff and H & N Construction and Blake Brothers on a pro rata basis on the amount each receives from the proceeds of the sale of the property after payment of taxes.
In order to avoid further delay in the disposition of this case, we have prepared and approved a journal entry disposing of the issues in accordance with this decision and have filed the same with the clerk of courts, saving exceptions of all parties.

Judgment accordingly.

Collier, P. J., Gillen and Radcliee, JJ., concur.