Stiver v. Heirs of Stiver
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a suit in chancery, reserved in the county of Montgomery. The facts appearing fronrthe bill,'and the answer of John Stiver, are as follows: In July, 1821, the execution of the will of Caspar Stiver, deceased, was duly committed to the plaintiff and Caspar Stiver, jr. Among the debts returned by the executors as due to the estate, is the amount of a note given by Caspar Stiver, jr., to C. Stiver, sen., for $943, which note, with certain other assets, were held by C.…
Read the full summary
This is a suit in chancery, reserved in the county of Montgomery. The facts appearing fronrthe bill,'and the answer of John Stiver, are as follows: In July, 1821, the execution of the will of Caspar Stiver, deceased, was duly committed to the plaintiff and Caspar Stiver, jr. Among the debts returned by the executors as due to the estate, is the amount of a note given by Caspar Stiver, jr., to C. Stiver, sen., for $943, which note, with certain other assets, were held by C. Stiver, jr., in his character as executor. In 1825, C. Stiver, jr., died, without-completing the settlement of O. Stiver,…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
That a bill for an account may be sustained between executors, or between a surviving executor and the representative of a deceased executor, is a plain consequence of their relation as joint tenants. The jurisdiction of a court of chancery, for the settlement of decedents’ estates, has.been sustained, at the instance of creditors, before judgment, because it is a trust. 6 Ohio, 112; 6 Johns. Ch. 631. Eor these objects, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a reference to the master.
Some of the other points argued, do not properly arise in this…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Taylor v. Executors of HuberOhio Supreme Court · 1862
- Patten v. PattenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920