Blizzard v. Filler
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery reserved in Muskingum county. The bill was filed upon leave granted by the court, (1) and alleges the death of Hazel Clary, the proof of a verbal will, the appointment of Henry Earns as his administrator, with the will annexed; that defendants Foster, Chapman, and Earns became his sureties in the administration bond; that large sums came into the hands of Henry Earns, as administrator of Ciar}* 1', which he failed properly to administer; that he…
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery reserved in Muskingum county. The bill was filed upon leave granted by the court, (1) and alleges the death of Hazel Clary, the proof of a verbal will, the appointment of Henry Earns as his administrator, with the will annexed; that defendants Foster, Chapman, and Earns became his sureties in the administration bond; that large sums came into the hands of Henry Earns, as administrator of Ciar}* 1', which he failed properly to administer; that he diedhopelessly insolvent, and that defendant Filler administered upon Earns’ estate; and complainant was appointed…
1Opinion of the CourtRanney, J.
The single question presented for the consideration of the court in this case is, can an administrator de bonis non, appointed upon the death of the first administrator, bring a suit upon his official bond, upon an allegation that money came into his hands for which he failed to account? Earns was the administrator of Clary, and before he had settled the estate, died. Blizzard was then appointed administrator de bonis non on the estate of Clary, and Filler administrator on the estate of Earns. The other defendants were Earns’ sureties. It is alleged that Earns failed properly to administer…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. StroheckerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840