In Re Estate of Long

Ohio Court of Appeals

In Re Estate of Long

64 N.E.2d 261, 76 Ohio App. 321, 32 Ohio Op. 34, 1945 Ohio App. LEXIS 611

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1945

Docket296

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 N.E.2d 261 (In Re Estate of Long) 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

In Re Estate of Long, 64 N.E.2d 261, 76 Ohio App. 321, 32 Ohio Op. 34, 1945 Ohio App. LEXIS 611 (Ohio Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

In the Probate Court William Kent Fenton, under authority of Section 10509-193, General Code, as amended in 1941, filed an application for an allowance for legal services alleged to have been rendered to the administratrix. After a hearing, the application was granted in part, and motion for a new trial was filed by the administratrix and overruled, all on June 20, 1944. On June 22nd, the administratrix filed a notice of appeal on questions of law and fact to the Court of Common Pleas. On July 19th, the ad *322 ministratrix filed a bill of exceptions in the Probate Court which bill was duly certified by the judge of that court on August 10th.

On October 5th, William Kent Fenton filed a motion in the Common Pleas Court to dismiss that appeal “for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine same” and on November 15th that motion was granted, from which order this appeal on questions of law was filed on November 16th.

Appeals from the Probate Court to the' Court of Common Pleas are now provided for in Section 10501-56, General Code. Under it, appeal to that court on questions of law and fact can be had only wheii “a record has not been taken at the hearing of any matter before the Probate Court so that a bill of exceptions or a complete record may be prepared.” That law is constitutional. In re Estate of Bates, 142 Ohio St., 622, 53 N. E. (2d), 787.

In this case, a record was taken and a complete bill of exceptions was filed in the Probate Court by the administratrix. Such being the record, the court did not err when it dismissed the appeal, and its judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stuart and Conn, JJ., concur.

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

Carpenter, J.

In the Probate Court William Kent Fenton, under authority of Section 10509-193, General Code, as amended in 1941, filed an application for an allowance for legal services alleged to have been rendered to the administratrix. After a hearing, the application was granted in part, and motion for a new trial was filed by the administratrix and overruled, all on June 20, 1944. On June 22nd, the administratrix filed a notice of appeal on questions of law and fact to the Court of Common Pleas. On July 19th, the ad *322 ministratrix filed a bill of exceptions in the Probate Court which bill was duly certified by the judge of that court on August 10th.

On October 5th, William Kent Fenton filed a motion in the Common Pleas Court to dismiss that appeal “for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine same” and on November 15th that motion was granted, from which order this appeal on questions of law was filed on November 16th.

Appeals from the Probate Court to the' Court of Common Pleas are now provided for in Section 10501-56, General Code. Under it, appeal to that court on questions of law and fact can be had only wheii “a record has not been taken at the hearing of any matter before the Probate Court so that a bill of exceptions or a complete record may be prepared.” That law is constitutional. In re Estate of Bates, 142 Ohio St., 622, 53 N. E. (2d), 787.

In this case, a record was taken and a complete bill of exceptions was filed in the Probate Court by the administratrix. Such being the record, the court did not err when it dismissed the appeal, and its judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Stuart and Conn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.E.2d 261, 76 Ohio App. 321, 32 Ohio Op. 34, 1945 Ohio App. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-long-ohioctapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack