Legal Opinion

Gearhart v. Richardson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1924No. 17968PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The first question requiring consideration is whether or not the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain this case upon appeal.

The answer to this question depends upon whether or not the action is “a chancery case.” We have no hesitancy in saying that an action wherein the termination of a charitable trust is sought, and an accounting for the proceeds thereof by the trustees prayed for, is equitable in character-and is a chancery case.

It has long been recognized that the jurisdiction of courts of chancery over charitable trusts has been exercised without question, and that early in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re the Probate of the Will of RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  2. Woodruff v. MarshSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
  3. In Re Estate of UphamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Sears v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  5. Moorhead v. Little Miami Rail RoadOhio Supreme Court · 1848

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Village of Hinsdale v. Chicago City Missionary SocietyIllinois Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Moskowitz v. FedermanOhio Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Findley v. City of ConneautOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Wills v. Union Savings & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Crowley, Admr. v. CrowleyOhio Supreme Court · 1931

29 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