Opinion

Rammelsberg v. Mitchell

  • 29 Ohio St. 22
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 15, 1875
Status
Published
Author
White
On the bench
McIlvaine, Welch, White
Cited by
27 cases

The opinion

White, J.

I concur in the judgment in this case. I also agree that the plaintiffs, under the circumstances of the case, are not concluded by the decree which undertakes to invest the surviving partner with the title to the real estate, of which the probate court had no jurisdiction. The object of the suit in which the decree was rendered was to clothe the surviving partner with the legal title to the property, the equitable title to which he had already ac *59 quirecl by virtue of the proceedings in the probate court. His right to the property was based exclusively on that proceeding, no other claim or title being asserted for adjudication. In so far, therefore, as the probate court had no jurisdiction or authority under the statute to transfer the real estate of the plaintiffs, I think the decree of the superior court may be impeached, as well by the adult plaintiff as by the minors, toward all of whom the defendant stood in the relation of trustee.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.