Heirs of Waldsmith v. Administrators of Waldsmith
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause came before the court by adjournment from the Supreme Court of Hamilton county, upon a motion to set aside a nonsuit and grant a new trial. It was an action of general indebitatus assumpsit, in which the plaintiffs claimed as heirs of Christian Waldsmith, and charged the defendants as his administrators. In the declaration the plaintiffs described themselves as “ children of John Waldsmith, deceased, and heirs of Christian Waldsmith.”
Read the full summary
This cause came before the court by adjournment from the Supreme Court of Hamilton county, upon a motion to set aside a nonsuit and grant a new trial. It was an action of general indebitatus assumpsit, in which the plaintiffs claimed as heirs of Christian Waldsmith, and charged the defendants as his administrators. In the declaration the plaintiffs described themselves as “ children of John Waldsmith, deceased, and heirs of Christian Waldsmith.” Besides the usual money counts, as for money received by the defendants after the death of an intestate, the declaration contained a count alleging a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court, by
Judge Burnet :
At the trial of this cause, it was proposed, on the part of the plaintiffs, to prove that they were children of John Waldsmith, and heirs of Christian Waldsmith, deceased — that the defendants were the administrators of C. Waldsmith, and that on settlement of their accounts before the court of common pleas, a large sum was found in their hands belonging to the heirs. This testimony was rejected, and a judgment of nonsuit entered.
On a motion to open the nonsuit; and grant a new trial, the question was, whether the court erred in overruling the testimony.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Carter v. Phelps'sNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rose v. Third Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1944