Plaintiff alleges that appellant's mortgage was the product of dishonest dealings between defendant and plaintiff's former employee, also a named defendant, who mortgaged the property a second time to a company controlled by himself, the validity of which second mortgage is also a subject of the action. Although plaintiff instituted the instant action not long after its mortgage with defendant was executed, it continued to pay the loan installments under protest. However...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
