Hughes v. Dale

Hamilton Circuit Court

Hughes v. Dale

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 270

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided January 15, 1898·Published

Opinion

Swing, J. ;

Cox, J., concurs; Smith, J., dissents.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment of the court of common pleas in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that the property levied upon by the bank did not pass to the assignee and become part of the assets of this trust by virtue of the assignment, but passed by virtue of an agreement between the bank and the assignee, and therefore did not become assets in his hands as such assignee, to be distributed according to law.

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

Swing, J. ;

Cox, J., concurs; Smith, J., dissents.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment of the court of common pleas in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that the property levied upon by the bank did not pass to the assignee and become part of the assets of this trust by virtue of the assignment, but passed by virtue of an agreement between the bank and the assignee, and therefore did not become assets in his hands as such assignee, to be distributed according to law.

Hughes v. Dale, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 270 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 270 (Hughes v. Dale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.