Wissel v. Pierson

Hamilton Circuit Court

Wissel v. Pierson

18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 452, 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 428, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 353

DecidedFebruary 7, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 452 (Wissel v. Pierson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wissel v. Pierson, 18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 452, 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 428, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 353 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

JELKE, J.

We are of the opinion that when Mr. David L. Cosbey gave the deeds m question to his wife, and said to her, ’“Put them away in my possession until he was done with them and then deliver them to the girls,” it became a good delivery. It is probable that the wife did. not remember the exact words spoken by her husband at the time he gave her the deeds. She does not say that these were his exact words. In order, therefore, to arrive at the correct meaning to be given to these words, the court should look at the surrounding circumstances. The deeds were executed to take the place of a will, and were testamentary in their nature. Cosbey was undoubtedly informed by the justice of the peace that he could not retain possession of the deeds and have the title pass after his death and, therefore, when he gave them to his wife, to be by her kept in her possession and after his death delivered to his daughters, the evident purpose was to make a good delivery, and it was his purpose to lose dominion over the deeds, and put them in possession of his wife. And the subsequent conduct of both parties in regard to the deeds bears this out, for the wife always kept them in her own papers. The expression “until he was done with them” is not very definite, and not of controlling importance; standing alone it has no certain meaning, but taken in connection with the whole subject-matter, it probably means after his death.

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Giffen, JJ., concur,.

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

JELKE, J.

We are of the opinion that when Mr. David L. Cosbey gave the deeds m question to his wife, and said to her, ’“Put them away in my possession until he was done with them and then deliver them to the girls,” it became a good delivery. It is probable that the wife did. not remember the exact words spoken by her husband at the time he gave her the deeds. She does not say that these were his exact words. In order, therefore, to arrive at the correct meaning to be given to these words, the court should look at the surrounding circumstances. The deeds were executed to take the place of a will, and were testamentary in their nature. Cosbey was undoubtedly informed by the justice of the peace that he could not retain possession of the deeds and have the title pass after his death and, therefore, when he gave them to his wife, to be by her kept in her possession and after his death delivered to his daughters, the evident purpose was to make a good delivery, and it was his purpose to lose dominion over the deeds, and put them in possession of his wife. And the subsequent conduct of both parties in regard to the deeds bears this out, for the wife always kept them in her own papers. The expression “until he was done with them” is not very definite, and not of controlling importance; standing alone it has no certain meaning, but taken in connection with the whole subject-matter, it probably means after his death.

Judgment affirmed.

Swing and Giffen, JJ., concur,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 452, 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 428, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wissel-v-pierson-ohcircthamilton-1906.