Gutridge v. Vanatta
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Licking county. This is a suit on an executor’s bond, made by Samuel Winegartner, as executor of Henry Schnebley. Winegartner having deceased, Gutridge, administrator de bonis non of Schnebley, brings this action against the legal representatives of one of the sureties on Wiuegartner’s bond. This surety was Jesse S. Yanatta, and his legal representatives, who are defendants in the action,andhis executors and devisees.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Licking county. This is a suit on an executor’s bond, made by Samuel Winegartner, as executor of Henry Schnebley. Winegartner having deceased, Gutridge, administrator de bonis non of Schnebley, brings this action against the legal representatives of one of the sureties on Wiuegartner’s bond. This surety was Jesse S. Yanatta, and his legal representatives, who are defendants in the action,andhis executors and devisees. A copy of the bond is attached and made part of the petition, which states : That there came to the possession of the said Samuel Winegartner, as…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
Several grounds of demurrer are argued:
1. That petition shows no breach of the bond.
2. Plaintiff shows no authority to sue.
3. Causes of action are improperly joined.
It is provided by statute “ that in all cases when the powers of an executor or administrator have' ceased, by death, removal, resignation, or in any other manner, any succeeding administrator or co-executor or co-administrator, may maintain an action on the bond of such executor or administrator, whose powers have ceased, against any of the obligors thereof, or their legal representatives, for any breach of the conditions of said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lessee of Adams v. JeffriesOhio Supreme Court · 1843
- Turney v. YeomanOhio Supreme Court · 1846