King v. Van Pelt

Ohio Supreme Court

King v. Van Pelt

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 651

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1926

DocketNo. 19970

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 651 (King v. Van Pelt) 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

King v. Van Pelt, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 651 (Ohio 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

This action was brought originally in the Highland Common Pleas by Bert Van Pelt, executor of the estate ox E. G. Cox, deceased, against Frank L. and Mildred King upon two promissory notes executed by the Kings, E. G. Cox being the payee. The Kings filed an answer in which they alleged that the deceased gave the notes back to Mrs. King just before go.ng to the hospital with the statement "iliese notes aie yours. I give them to you. x may ask you lor them if 1 come back from the hospital”; that the notes were accepted and that Cox died at the hospital.

The Common Pleas held the notes to have been given to Mildred King as a gift causa mortis. This judgment was reversed by Ihe Court of Appeals for error “In applying ihe law to the facts as shown by the undisouied testincnv and judgment was rendered in favor of the executor.”

The Kings in the Supreme Court contend: that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to render judgment in favor of the exeertor when judgment was not requested in the pet.iion in error.

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

This action was brought originally in the Highland Common Pleas by Bert Van Pelt, executor of the estate ox E. G. Cox, deceased, against Frank L. and Mildred King upon two promissory notes executed by the Kings, E. G. Cox being the payee. The Kings filed an answer in which they alleged that the deceased gave the notes back to Mrs. King just before go.ng to the hospital with the statement "iliese notes aie yours. I give them to you. x may ask you lor them if 1 come back from the hospital”; that the notes were accepted and that Cox died at the hospital.

The Common Pleas held the notes to have been given to Mildred King as a gift causa mortis. This judgment was reversed by Ihe Court of Appeals for error “In applying ihe law to the facts as shown by the undisouied testincnv and judgment was rendered in favor of the executor.”

The Kings in the Supreme Court contend: that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to render judgment in favor of the exeertor when judgment was not requested in the pet.iion in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-van-pelt-ohio-1926.