Legal Opinion

Bauman v. Walter

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1953No. 33374Published

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.

We recognize that, where deposit obligations such as those in the instant case have been *275coupled with an additional obligation to pay to the survivor, such accounts have been frequently referred to as joint and survivorship accounts. However, the obligation of the bank was not to pay to the husband and the wife but to either the husband or the wife. Such language apparently expresses no intention to create joint as distinguished from alternative several rights. See 2 Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed.), 934, 945, 946, Sections 321, 325. Therefore, throughout this opinion, we will refrain from…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cleveland Trust Co. v. ScobieOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  2. In Re Estate of HutchisonOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Oleff, Admr. v. Hodapp, Gdn.Ohio Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Union Properties, Inc. v. Cleveland Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Rhorbacker v. Citizens Building Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1941

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API