Legal Opinion

Hite v. Hite

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1929No. 21258PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.

Sarah L. Hite, a widow, was the mother of Oscar S. Hite and Maud Mussetter, and she was living on April 27, 1914, at the time the agreement was made. Since no one can be heir to a living person, Oscar’s status was that of heir apparent or presumptive, with the hope of succeeding to a portion of his mother’s estate, either by will or descent. He had no present existing right, either vested or contingent, and that which he attempted to convey was at most a bare or mere possibility, sometimes referred to as an expectancy.

Fortunately for both parties to the agreement, the mother did make him a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McCall's Adm'r v. HamptonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
  2. Alves v. SchlesingerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883
  3. Searcy v. Gwaltney Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1904

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. West Broad Chiropractic v. American Family InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. In Re PetryUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1986
  3. Bednar v. BednarOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Goodman v. Granger (In Re Granger)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1988
  5. West Broad Chiropractic v. American Family InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2009

1 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