Legal Opinion

Peau v. Moseley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1966No. 40031PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.

The order of the Probate Court deals only with Ohio real estate. No one before the court is complaining because it did not also deal with personal property. The only reference in the record to personal property is to rents received from the Ohio real estate. Such rents, if collected after *16the testator’s death, would represent and be disposed of as real estate. Barlow v. Winters National Bank & Trust Co., Trustee (1945), 145 Ohio St. 270, 61 N. E. 2d 603. There is nothing in the record tending to show that such rents were not collected after the testator’s death. Therefore, we are not required…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kirsheman v. PaulinOhio Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Barlow v. Winters National Bank & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Bailey v. BaileyOhio Supreme Court · 1837
  4. Crabbe v. LingoOhio Supreme Court · 1946

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Estate of MiltenbergerMichigan Supreme Court · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API