Clark v. Clark

Ohio Court of Appeals

Clark v. Clark

155 N.E. 409, 23 Ohio App. 68, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 279, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 441

DecidedJune 7, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.E. 409 (Clark v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Clark, 155 N.E. 409, 23 Ohio App. 68, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 279, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 441 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, J.

Lizzie K. Clark brought suit in the Hamilton -Common Pleas against Alfred Clark, administrator of the estate' of Henry Clark deceased. In the petition it was alleged that Henry Clark entered into a pretended marriage with Lizzie Clark although he was married at the time, and as a result thereof they lived in the status of man and wife, and at various times deposited money in the bank in decedent’s name which was from the earnings of both. Further she says she does not know the amount and asks for an accounting and an injunction to restrain the paying out of the moneys.

Judgment was rendered in favor of Lizzie Clark and error is prosecuted here to reverse that judgment. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The evidence shows that she cohabited with decedent as husband and wife, that she did some small daily engagement for which she was paid $2.50 per day, that she did give decedent some money but there is nothing to show what the husband did with the money.

2. From the bill of exceptions there is no evidence tending to prove ownership in the funds deposited in the name of deceased, found to his credit, and taken charge of by administrator.

Judgment reversed.

(Buchwalter, PJ., and Cushing, J., concur.)

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

HAMILTON, J.

Lizzie K. Clark brought suit in the Hamilton -Common Pleas against Alfred Clark, administrator of the estate' of Henry Clark deceased. In the petition it was alleged that Henry Clark entered into a pretended marriage with Lizzie Clark although he was married at the time, and as a result thereof they lived in the status of man and wife, and at various times deposited money in the bank in decedent’s name which was from the earnings of both. Further she says she does not know the amount and asks for an accounting and an injunction to restrain the paying out of the moneys.

Judgment was rendered in favor of Lizzie Clark and error is prosecuted here to reverse that judgment. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The evidence shows that she cohabited with decedent as husband and wife, that she did some small daily engagement for which she was paid $2.50 per day, that she did give decedent some money but there is nothing to show what the husband did with the money.

2. From the bill of exceptions there is no evidence tending to prove ownership in the funds deposited in the name of deceased, found to his credit, and taken charge of by administrator.

Judgment reversed.

(Buchwalter, PJ., and Cushing, J., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 409, 23 Ohio App. 68, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 279, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-clark-ohioctapp-1926.