In re Estate of Fallon

Hamilton County Probate Court

In re Estate of Fallon

3 Ohio N.P. 62

DecidedJuly 1, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ohio N.P. 62 (In re Estate of Fallon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton County Probate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Estate of Fallon, 3 Ohio N.P. 62 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

The decedent was matron of the City Hospital, Cincinnati, for a number of years. Her death occurred in Atlanta, Ga., where she held a position in the Aragon Hotei. She left quite an estate in this jurisdiction —street railway stock and other securities, and $2,000 in a building association. Mr. Cook applied in the capacity of a creditor for letters of administration. The application was resisted on the ground that the domicile of the decedent was in Atlanta, where an administrator of her estate has already been appointed. Depositions bearing on the question of domicile were taken at several different points, and counsel made extended arguments. .

Judge Ferris in an oral decision, held that the question of domicile cut no figure; that -where there are assets and debts in this jurisdiction, a creditor will not be required .to go to Atlanta to prove his claim, b.ut the esr tate which is here will, be administered here.

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

The decedent was matron of the City Hospital, Cincinnati, for a number of years. Her death occurred in Atlanta, Ga., where she held a position in the Aragon Hotei. She left quite an estate in this jurisdiction —street railway stock and other securities, and $2,000 in a building association. Mr. Cook applied in the capacity of a creditor for letters of administration. The application was resisted on the ground that the domicile of the decedent was in Atlanta, where an administrator of her estate has already been appointed. Depositions bearing on the question of domicile were taken at several different points, and counsel made extended arguments. .

Judge Ferris in an oral decision, held that the question of domicile cut no figure; that -where there are assets and debts in this jurisdiction, a creditor will not be required .to go to Atlanta to prove his claim, b.ut the esr tate which is here will, be administered here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ohio N.P. 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-fallon-ohprobcthamilto-1894.