Legal Opinion

Sage v. Flueck

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 14, 1937No. 26313PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The dominant question is whether a joint and survivorship deposit account belongs to'the estate of its creator or to the surviving joint depositors.

In Ohio, a surviving joint depositor has a right to the proceeds of a joint and survivorship bank account, not as an incident to joint tenancy, which is not recognized in Ohio (Sergeant v. Steinberger, 2 Ohio, 305, 15 Am. Dec., 553; Wilson and Marsh v. Fleming, 13 Ohio, 68; Tax Comm. v. Hutchison, 120 Ohio St., 361, 166 N. E., 352; In re Estate of Hutchison, 120 Ohio St., 542, 166 N. E., 687), but arising out of the contract of deposit.

“While…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Chippendale v. North Adams Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  2. Cleveland Trust Co. v. ScobieOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Kelly v. . BeersNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  4. Kennedy v. McMurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. In Re Estate of HutchisonOhio Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commerce Trust Co. v. WattsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
  2. Wright v. BloomOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Beach v. HollandOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  4. O'Brien v. BieggerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
  5. Eger v. EgerOhio Court of Appeals · 1974

24 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