In Re Tredway

163 N.E. 223, 29 Ohio App. 265, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 805, 1927 Ohio App. LEXIS 390
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 7, 1927·No. 89·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

163 N.E. 223 (In Re Tredway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chambers v. Gallo
108 A.2d 254 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1954)