Murdock v. Lantz
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tbe District Court of Vinton county. ' The original action, which was in the nature of a creditor’s bill, was brought by defendants in error, against plaintiffs in error, to subject certain real estate, being two-tracts of land, containing, in the aggregate, forty-five and a half acres, alleged to be the property of Owen T. Gunning, to the payment of a judgment against said Gunning- and others.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Vinton county. ' The original action, which was in the nature of a creditor’s bill, was brought by defendants in error, against plaintiffs in error, to subject certain real estate, being two-tracts of land, containing, in the aggregate, forty-five and a half acres, alleged to be the property of Owen T. Gunning, to the payment of a judgment against said Gunning- and others. The judgment sought to be thus satisfied was rendered in favor of one Charles Traphagen, and against said Gunning and one Henry S. Hamilton, as principal debtors, and against the defendants in…
1Opinion of the CourtMcIlvaine, J.
The claim of the plaintiffs below was, that Mrs. Gunning died seized of an equitable fee in remainder to the forty, and five and a half acres of land, which vested in her husband upon her death, and thus became subject to the payment of his debts.
It is not disputed, that if Mrs. Gunning died possessed of any estate in the forty, and five and a half acre tracts, the same, being non-ancestral property, passed to and vested in the husband absolutely at her death. Nor is it disputed, on the other hand, that if she died seized of any beneficial interest in the one hundred aud thirty-two and a half…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Staton v. NewMississippi Supreme Court · 1873