Fry v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tlie Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county. Fry filed his petition to subject the proceeds of sundry bills and accounts receivable of Smith to the satisfaction of a judgment which he had recovered against him. A receiver was appointed to collect the proceeds who made collections thereof, and Smith, as the head of a family, demanded an allowance out of the proceeds of five hundred dollars in lieu of a homestead.
Read the full summary
Error to tlie Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county. Fry filed his petition to subject the proceeds of sundry bills and accounts receivable of Smith to the satisfaction of a judgment which he had recovered against him. A receiver was appointed to collect the proceeds who made collections thereof, and Smith, as the head of a family, demanded an allowance out of the proceeds of five hundred dollars in lieu of a homestead. The only question for determination here is. whether the circuit court erred in sustaining his demand upon the following facts which it found: “This day this cause came on to be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The judgment of the circuit court is in accordance with the settled interpretation of the statute in question. Niehaus v. Faul, 43 Ohio St., 63; 54 Ohio St., 664, affirming Carter et al. v. Ross, 8 C. C. Rep., 139, upon grounds stated in the opinion of the circuit court.
The right of the debtor to the exemption is as strong when his property is being sold and its proceeds distributed under the forms of equity as when that result is being reached by legal process. Comer et al. v. Dodson et al., 22 Ohio St., 615.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Feigley v. WhitakerOhio Supreme Court · 1872