STATE Ex SPIRES v. ALLREAD Et

Ohio Supreme Court

STATE Ex SPIRES v. ALLREAD Et

160 N.E. 26, 117 Ohio St. 584, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 79, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 584, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 219

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 21, 1927

Docket20636

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 N.E. 26 (STATE Ex SPIRES v. ALLREAD Et) 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

STATE Ex SPIRES v. ALLREAD Et, 160 N.E. 26, 117 Ohio St. 584, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 79, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 584, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 219 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

The writ of prohibition prayed for in this case against the members of the Court of Appeals of Franklin county, Ohio, and William C. Safford, superintendent of insurance of the state of Ohio, is denied upon the authority of Hirsch v. Conn, 115 Ohio St., 87, and for the further reason that the property in which relator seeks to reach an interest in order -to satisfy a claim against one of the policyholders in the Great American Insurance Company is in custodia legis, and whatever rights, if any, relator may establish in the property and assets of the insurance bompany may be worked out, and, under well established equitable principles, can only be worked out through the court which has custody and control of said' property, and, further, has the right to make distribution thereof.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen and Kinkade, JJ., concur. Jones, J., concurs in the judgment.)

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

BY THE COURT.

The writ of prohibition prayed for in this case against the members of the Court of Appeals of Franklin county, Ohio, and William C. Safford, superintendent of insurance of the state of Ohio, is denied upon the authority of Hirsch v. Conn, 115 Ohio St., 87, and for the further reason that the property in which relator seeks to reach an interest in order -to satisfy a claim against one of the policyholders in the Great American Insurance Company is in custodia legis, and whatever rights, if any, relator may establish in the property and assets of the insurance bompany may be worked out, and, under well established equitable principles, can only be worked out through the court which has custody and control of said' property, and, further, has the right to make distribution thereof.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Allen and Kinkade, JJ., concur. Jones, J., concurs in the judgment.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 N.E. 26, 117 Ohio St. 584, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 79, 117 Ohio St. (N.S.) 584, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-spires-v-allread-et-ohio-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack