Legal Opinion

Schofield v. Cleveland Trust Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1939No. 27249PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

It is maintained by tbe plaintiff that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed for two reasons: First, because the trust is absolutely void, being a mere agency agreement, and, second, conceding its general validity, it cannot be supported as against the subsequent creditors of the settlor, who can compel revocation, and subject the trust corpus to the payment of the settlor’s debts by virtue of Section 8617, General Code. We shall discuss these contentions in the order stated.

The trust agreement in issue may properly be regarded as standard in form, possessing a number of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cleveland Trust Co. v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Union Trust Co. v. HawkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Schreyer v. SchreyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  4. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Alford v. AlfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. ReiserMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  2. Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. FCLT Loans, L.P. v. Estate of Bracher, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2002
  4. Central Trust Co. v. WattOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Matter of Estate of NagelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1998

9 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