In Re Tredway

Ohio Court of Appeals

In Re Tredway

163 N.E. 223, 29 Ohio App. 265, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 805, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 390

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 7, 1927

Docket89

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 N.E. 223 (In Re Tredway) 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 Tredway, 163 N.E. 223, 29 Ohio App. 265, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 805, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 390 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

WILLIAMS, J.

One of the most important duties devolving upon an administrator of an estate is to collect the debts due the estate and where an administrator has in his hands, as part of the assets, a note secured by a mortgage upon leal estate, it is his duty to collect the note and, if necessary, foreclose the mortgage, and it is wholly beyond his power and authority as personal representative of the estate to accept a conveyance of the real estate in satisfaction of the indebtedness evidenced by the note and mortgage. And if he wrongfully does so, he can not properly and legally charge himself in the account with moneys expended in connection with or in furtherance of the transaction; nor can he properly list, in his account, as a part of the funds of the estate, the real estate so wrongfully and unlawfully conveyed to him.

The judgment of the Common Pleas, in sustaining the exceptions and disallowing the items in the account excepted to, was not erroneous and the judgment will be affirmed.

(Richards and Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

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

OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

WILLIAMS, J.

One of the most important duties devolving upon an administrator of an estate is to collect the debts due the estate and where an administrator has in his hands, as part of the assets, a note secured by a mortgage upon leal estate, it is his duty to collect the note and, if necessary, foreclose the mortgage, and it is wholly beyond his power and authority as personal representative of the estate to accept a conveyance of the real estate in satisfaction of the indebtedness evidenced by the note and mortgage. And if he wrongfully does so, he can not properly and legally charge himself in the account with moneys expended in connection with or in furtherance of the transaction; nor can he properly list, in his account, as a part of the funds of the estate, the real estate so wrongfully and unlawfully conveyed to him.

The judgment of the Common Pleas, in sustaining the exceptions and disallowing the items in the account excepted to, was not erroneous and the judgment will be affirmed.

(Richards and Lloyd, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 N.E. 223, 29 Ohio App. 265, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 805, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tredway-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack