Legal Opinion

In Re Estate of Disanto

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1943No. 29513PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

We are of the opinion that the controlling principle in this case was settled in the case of' Rhorbacker, Exr., v. Citizens Building Assn. Co., 138 Ohio St., 273, 34 N. E. (2d), 751, 135 A. L. R., 988.

While this writer dissented in that case upon the ground that the then recent decisions of this court in similar cases had been based upon the theory of a contract between the donor and donee rather than upon a contract between the donor and the depositary for the benefit of a third person, the Rhorbacher case must now be accepted as declaring the applicable law in this state, to wit, that the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rhorbacker v. Citizens Building Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1941

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Edds v. Mitchell, Admr.Texas Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Harvey v. RackliffeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1945
  3. Conrad v. ConradCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Katz v. DriscollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Ervin v. . Conn and Bank v. . FredericksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

20 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