Legal Opinion
Smith v. Barrick
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 23, 1949No. 31536PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.
In the course of its per curiam opinion the Court of Appeals said :
“One cannot legally give or assign a chose in possession or a chose in action unless he has some legal or equitable interest to give or assign. And it follows that a person is not a donee or assignee of property unless the concomitant donor or assignor has some interest in property which can be the subject matter of a gift or assignment.”
The Court of Appeals here directed attention to the real question for consideration, to wit, was the decedent the owner of the bonds at the time appellant, Nettie Knappe, claims that these…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Weis v. WeisOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- In Re Estate of ButlerOhio Supreme Court · 1940
- Goehring v. DillardOhio Supreme Court · 1945
- Stream v. BarnardOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- Dudley v. SteeleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
3Cited by14 opinions
- Kelley Kar Co. v. FinklerOhio Supreme Court · 1951
- LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- Boyd v. EdwardsOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Walther v. Central Trust Co., N.A.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Dibble v. Dibble, Admx.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.