Legal Opinion · Dissent

Verbsky v. Burger

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1946No. 30469Published

1DissentHart, J.

I agree with the majority that Sections 11493 and 11497, General Code, are general in terms and state the general rule. Section 11495, General Code, is specific and creates a limitation upon the other above-named sections, and for that reason it must be strictly construed. Cockley Milling Co. v. Bunn, Admx., 75 Ohio St., 270, 79 N. E., 478; Stream v. Barnard, Exrx., 120 Ohio St., 206, 211,165 N. E., 727, 64 A. L. R., 1144. The extent of the limitation imposed by Section 11495, General Code, is the problem now befoi’e the court..

The purpose of Section 11495, General Code, is to protect estates…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Ellison v. GaniardIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Loeb v. SternIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Goehring v. DillardOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Conrey v. PrattSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
  5. Stream v. BarnardOhio Supreme Court · 1929

12 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