Legal Opinion

Skinner v. Miller

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 20, 1933No. 80PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*46OPINION

By HORNBECK, PJ,

It is true that the delivery, of this deed must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The record, in our judgment, provides the requisite proof. Without quoting the testimony it is but a natural and proper inference that when the parties went to the office of Poos & Poos to prepare and execute a deed, without condition, and effectuated that purpose and turned the deed over to Isaac Miller who accepted it with the statement that he would take care of it, that he was acting for and on behalf of the beneficiary of the deed, Anna M. Millar. He could have been acting…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Strowbridge v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1879
  2. White v. AllenWashington County Circuit Court, Oregon · 1869

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. McInnish v. SibitOhio Court of Appeals · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API