Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

In re HIGGINS ESTATE. HOLMES v. HIGGINS et al. (No. 8,855.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 20, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Franklin County. James T. Holmes, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Thomas E. Powell, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of circuit court reversed, and that of common pleas affirmed : ground stated in journal entry. It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed, for the reason that the record before the circuit court did not show that the probate court had not denied administration to the defendants in error for cause; and, this court proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and PRICE, SPEAR, and DAVIS, J.J., concur.

HILL v. STATE. (No. 9,447.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 5, 1905.) Error to Circuit Court, Richland County. Douglass & Mengert, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Huston, for the State,

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

DAVIS, C. J., and SHAUCK, PRICE, CREW, and SUMMERS, J.J., concur.

HILLIARD v. TOLEDO & O. C. R.Y. CO. (No. 9,742.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 19, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Fairfield County. S. W. Bennett, W. K. Martin, and J. M. Sheets, for plaintiff in error. Doyle & Lewis and Pickering & Pickering, for defendant in eTTOT.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and SUMMERS, SPEAR, and DAVIS, J.J., concur.

HOLDREN et al. v. HOLDREN et ai. (No. 9.366.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 29,

1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Fayette County. Post & Reid, for plaintiffs in error. Mills Gardner, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed; ground stated in journal entry. It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in computing and determining the specific amounts to be paid by the administrator, and in ascertaining and determining the basis for distribution of the proceeds arising from the sale of the real estate herein: and, this court proceeding to render the judgment the circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in adjudging that the interest of Stanley Holdren in the real estate devised to him by the will of his father, John W. Holdren, is not subject to be charged with the value of the life estate therein of Emma Holdren, by way of compensation to the Other devises under said will, because of the election of said Emma Holdren not to take under said will. And this cause is remanded to the court of common pleas of Fayette county, with instructions to ascertain and determine the value of the life estate of the said Emma Holdren in the real estate devised to Stanley Holdren, the value of the dower estate of said Emma Holdren in the whole of the real estate devised by the will of her husband, John W. IHoldren, the amount and value of the personal property of said estate, and the amount of the debts of said estate, including the specific legacies charged upon the real estate and the costs of administration; and when these several amounts shall have been ascertained, to order and direct that distribution be made of the proceeds arising from the sale of the real estate as follows: (1) The debts, costs of administration, and specific legacies charged on said real estate. (2) To Emma Holdren the estimated value of her dower in the whole of the premises. (3) To the devisees other than Stanley Holdren the amount found to be the value of the life estate of Emma Holdren, together with the value of the personal property. (4) The residue one. sixth to William Holdren. One-sixth to Reuben Holdren, one-sixth to Lafayette Holdren, onesixth to Ira Holdren, one-sixth to Stanley Holdren, and one-sixth to the children of Mattie Harper, as devisees under the Will of John W. Holdren. SHAUCK, C. J., and PRICE, CREW, SUMMERS, and SPEAR, J.J., concur.

HOLLMEYER et al. v. McKinney et al. (No. 9.211.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 3, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County. Ernst Rehm, for plaintiffs in error. Closs & Luebbert and Stanley Struble, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., and CREW and SPEAR, J.J., concur.

HOUSER. v. CINCINNATI & EASTERN ELECTRIC R. CO. (No. 9,550.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 27, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Clermont County. Frazier & Hicks, for plaintiff in error. F. F. Dinsmore and Nichols & Nichols, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS, and DAVIS, J.J., conCllr.

HUBER. v. CAREW et al. (No. 9.177.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 3, 1906.) Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County. John W.

« ForrigeFortsett »