Thomas v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co.

Citations

• 81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 432

Syllabus

<p>Action against am abstracter — For negligence in certifying title — Does not sound in tort — Must be founded on contrac Abstracter liable only to employer — Usage can not create contract — Doctrine of caveat emptor — Law of privity of contract.</p> <p>1. An action against an abstracter to recover damages for negligence in making or certifying an abstract of title does not sound in tort, but must be founded on contract; and the general rule is that an abstracter can be held liable for such negligence only to the person who employed him.</p> <p>2. Usage or custom cannot create a contract or liability, where none otherwise exists. A usage or custom can only be used to explain, or aid in the interpretation of, a contract or liability existing independently of it. It cannot be permitted to contradict or vary the express terms of a contract, nor to vary the legal import thereof.</p> <p>3. A custom which would relieve a purchaser from the obligations imposed upon him by the doctrine of caveat emptor, which requires a vendee to protect himself by express covenants and investigation of the title which he is to acquire, is contrary to law.</p>