Industrial Commission v. Henry

11 Ohio Law. Abs. 384
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 24, 1932
DocketNo 23017
StatusPublished

This text of 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 384 (Industrial Commission v. Henry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Industrial Commission v. Henry, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 384 (Ohio 1932).

Opinion

Full opinion will be published later. Watch Omnibus Index. <

[385]*385Through our selling agents, The Haynes Publishing Company, of Cleveland, we have obtained a pamphlet containing the recently adopted Uniform Rules of Practice in the Probate Courts of Ohio for use under the new 1932 Law. Permission to reprint the material in the pamphlet was granted by the Baldwin Law Publishing Company, copyright owners.

UNIFORM RULES OF PRACTICE

PROBATE COURTS OP OHIO

Approved- by

Supreme Court of the State of Ohio

February 24, 1932

Published by

The Baldwin Law Publishing Company

Cleveland

Association of Probate Judges of Ohio

OFFICERS

Gideon Palmer, President . . Hamilton, Ohio J. H. Lamneck, Viee-P„ New Philadelphia, O. Harry G. Gram, Secretary, Springfield, Ohio Lewis D. Slusser, Treasurer . . Akron, Ohio

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Alva L. Deal .............. Stark County

Lodge Riddle..........Columbiana County

Addie Nye Norton .......... Lake County

Hugh J. Wright .......... Clinton County

V. A. Bennehoff............Seneca County

W. W. Harrison .......... Harrison County-

PROBATE CODE' COMMITTEE

J. H. Lamneck ...... Tuscarawas County
H. J. Alexander .......... Licking County
C. M. Woodside ...... Mahoning County

Gideon Palmer ............ Butler County

Harry G. Gram.............Clark County

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Harry G. Gram ............ Clark County

John R. Coffin .......... Auglaize County

F. F. Fleming ...... Washington County

Byron Landis .............. Preble County

S. M. Johnson ............ Athens County

SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Wm. H. Lueders ........ Hamilton County

W. C. Wiseman ......Montgomery County

O’Brien O’Donnell ..........Lucas County

Lewis D. Slusser..........Summit County

COPYRIGHT, 1932

Probate Courts of Ohio

Approved by

With Explanatory Notes prepared by the Probate Code Committee of the Probate Judges’ Association

The Baldwin Law Publishing Company Cleveland

• STATE OF OHIO, City of Columbus.

Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, Of the Term of January, A. D. 1932

To-wit: February 24, 1932

In the Matter of Adoption of Uniform Rules of Practice for the PROBATE COURTS of Ohio — Order pursuant to Sec. 10501-13 G. C.

It is ordered by the Court that the “Uniform Rules of Practice” proposed by the Ohio Probate Judges Association for the Probate Courts of Ohio, a copy of which has this day been filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court be, and the same are, approved, in accordance with Section 10501-13 General Code.

Approved, Day, J.

I, SEBA H. MILLER, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that the foregoing entry is truly taken and correctly copied from the records of said Court, to-wit:

from Journal No. 32 Page......

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of said Supreme Court this 26th day of February A. D. 1932.

Seba H. Miller, Clerk.

(SEAL)

Sessions of Court

1. The Probate Office will be open for the transaction of ordinary business during regular business hours on all business days except Saturday. On Saturday, office hours will be maintained during the forenoon.

2. As far as practicable, the Court will' [386]*386hear cases beginning at 9 A/. M. on each Court day.

Bonds

3. Persons offering themselves as sureties must appear in Court to make oath to the amount of property they own over and above all incumbrances, unless special leave is given for such persons to execute (a justification before some other officer. The foregoing doeS not apply to authorized insurance companies registered in Court.

See G.C. §10506-6, Deibel’s Ohio Probate Law, 2nd Ed., §687.

^4. Practicing attorneys shall not be allowed to become sureties or bail, in any cause, nor shall they be permitted to become surety on the bond of any executor, administrator, guardian, assignee, or trustee.

5. Every Executor or Trustee will be required to give a bond even if a bond is requested to be dispensed with by the provisions of a Will, unless a showing is made that a bond is not necessary to protect creditors.

See G.C. §10506-17, Deibel’s Ohio Probate Law,' 2nd Ed., §698.

It is thought best to require a bond in estates where a bond is requested to be dispensed with in a Will, if there are creditors whbse right might be prejudiced if no bond was required. There are a number of cases where no bond was required and the funds were dissipated by the executor, causing creditors financial loss.

Residence

6. A non-resident person of this county named as a testamentary guardian of a minor in a Will of a parent, will not be appointed as such guardian, unless a showing is made that it would be for the best interests of said minor to make such appointment.

See G.C. §10506-65, Deibel’s Ohio Probate Law, 2nd Ed., §746.'

The purpose of this rule is to keep testamentary guardians residents of the county in all cases unless the interests of the ward would be best subserved by appointing á nón-resident.

7. Of non-resident persons of this county entitled to administer the estate of an intestate, the one living nearest this county will be given preference, in making appointments, other things being equal.

See G.C. §10506-65 Deibel’s Ohio Probate Law, 2nd Ed., §746.

If there are two persons in the same class entitled to administer an estate and both are non-residents of the county, economy would demand that the one living nearest the county should be given preference, other things being equal.

General Qualifications

8. No person will be appointed an executor, administrator, guardian, receiver, trus- , tee or assignee who cannot read,' write, and speak the English language, unless the Court for good cause shown directs otherwise.

See Deibel’s Ohio Probate Law, 2nd Ed., §848, note 2.

Failure to Apply for Administration

9. If a person entitled to administer the estate of an intestate, or an executor named in a Will fails to apply for letters of administration or letters testamentary three months after the death of the intestate or probate of the Will, his right to priority shall be deemed lost, and the Court on the motion of any interested party, after the issuance of a citation as provided by law, may commit the administration of said estate to any one of the persons next in order, or if there are none such, then to some other suitable person.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Ohio Law. Abs. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-commission-v-henry-ohio-1932.