In re the Estate of Ziegler
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County
On motion to dismiss 'the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not sufficient in amount, it was held : 1. That the finding of the amount due and the direction to pay was judgment for money, and that the appeal bond must be in a sum double the amount of the judgment. 2. That where a bond given on appeal from the Probate Court in such a case is defective in that the amount thereof does not conform with the requirements of the law, it may be amended, with the consent…
Read the full summary
On motion to dismiss 'the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not sufficient in amount, it was held : 1. That the finding of the amount due and the direction to pay was judgment for money, and that the appeal bond must be in a sum double the amount of the judgment. 2. That where a bond given on appeal from the Probate Court in such a case is defective in that the amount thereof does not conform with the requirements of the law, it may be amended, with the consent of the sureties, by inserting the correct amount, or the appellant may give a new bond in the proper sum.
1Opinion of the CourtHollister, J.
The Probate Court in settling the accounts of B. H. Lamping as administrator de bonis non of Phillip Ziegler, deceased, made an order: “That said B. H. Lamping, as administrator, should be .charged with, and in law has in his possession unadministered of the assets of said estate, the sum of $15,-988.78, with interest thereon from December 29, 1894, and that there is due to said estate from said B. H. Lamping said sum of $15,988.78, with interest as aforesaid. It istherfeore ordered, adjudged and decreed that said B. H. Lamping pay to Chas. J. Hunt, administrator de bonis non of the estate of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dennison v. TalmageOhio Supreme Court · 1876