Legal Opinion

Squire v. Branciforti

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1936No. 25723PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.

There is really just one question here, namely, do the facts pleaded by the Brancifortis in their petition establish a trust relationship between them and the Union Trust Company? If they do, then the Brancifortis are entitled to a preference and the answer does not state a defense. If they do not, there being nothing to indicate a bailment, then Brancifortis have failed on their petition, as the relation of debtor and creditor would necessarily exist between the bank and Brancifortis, and they would stand in the shoes of a general creditor.

We say there is no bailment here, as the specie was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cincinnati, Wilmington and Zanesville Railroad v. IliffOhio Supreme Court · 1862
  2. McDonald, Admr. v. FultonOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Fulton v. Escanaba Paper Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Wilson v. WoolvertonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933
  5. Glick v. GalierOhio Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hurst v. Enterprise Title Agency, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Pippin v. Kern-Ward Building Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Saad v. RodriguezOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Bell v. TurnerOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Johnson v. U.S. Title Agency, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API