Broadstone v. Brown

Ohio Supreme Court

Broadstone v. Brown

24 Ohio St. (N.S.) 430

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1873·Published

Opinion

"White, J.

This case was considered in connection with the case of Harkness v. Corning, supra, and the principle announced in that ease determines this.

The only difference in the two cases is, in that case the estate in fee tail was created by will; in the present ease, it is created by deed. The right to curtesy is not affected by the difference in the mode in which the estates were, created.

There was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.

Leave refused.

Hat, C. J., McIlvaine, Welch, and Rex, JJ., concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

"White, J.

This case was considered in connection with the case of Harkness v. Corning, supra, and the principle announced in that ease determines this.

The only difference in the two cases is, in that case the estate in fee tail was created by will; in the present ease, it is created by deed. The right to curtesy is not affected by the difference in the mode in which the estates were, created.

There was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.

Leave refused.

Hat, C. J., McIlvaine, Welch, and Rex, JJ., concurring.

Broadstone v. Brown, 24 Ohio St. (N.S.) 430 (Ohio 1873).

Pincite

24 Ohio St. (N.S.) 430 (Broadstone v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.