Hover v. Gardner

Ohio Supreme Court

Hover v. Gardner

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 135

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1924

DocketNo. 18281

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 135 (Hover v. Gardner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hover v. Gardner, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 135 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

This case asks for the construction of the will of Daniel Hoy, deceased, executed in 1856 in the following words:

“I give and devise to my beloved wife the farm on which we now reside containing about seventy acres, during her natural life; at the death of miy said wife the real estate aforesaid, I give and devise to my sons, Isaac Hoy and Philip Hoy, and their children; if either of miy sons should decease leaving no children, then, in that case, the surviving son shall have the deceased son’s part of my estate.”

Neither at the date of the execution of said will, nor at the death of said testator, did either of said sons have children.

The Common Pleas held that this devise vested in the two sons a fee simple. The Appeals held that it created a fee tail estate. Following the holding in Soteldo v. Clement, 29 Bull. 385, and Ranny, Ex., v. Ranny, 5 NP-73, affirmed 19 CC. The Court of Appeals for Logan county held that devise created a fee tail.

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

This case asks for the construction of the will of Daniel Hoy, deceased, executed in 1856 in the following words:

“I give and devise to my beloved wife the farm on which we now reside containing about seventy acres, during her natural life; at the death of miy said wife the real estate aforesaid, I give and devise to my sons, Isaac Hoy and Philip Hoy, and their children; if either of miy sons should decease leaving no children, then, in that case, the surviving son shall have the deceased son’s part of my estate.”

Neither at the date of the execution of said will, nor at the death of said testator, did either of said sons have children.

The Common Pleas held that this devise vested in the two sons a fee simple. The Appeals held that it created a fee tail estate. Following the holding in Soteldo v. Clement, 29 Bull. 385, and Ranny, Ex., v. Ranny, 5 NP-73, affirmed 19 CC. The Court of Appeals for Logan county held that devise created a fee tail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hover-v-gardner-ohio-1924.