Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Venetta v. Venetta

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1963No. 1545Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFrance, J.

I concur in so much of the opinion and judgment as directs reversal of the trial court’s judgment, and dissent only from so much as directs entry of final judgment for appellant.

At the risk of some duplication, the following points in the majority opinion should be emphasized:—

First: The petition alleged a trust in land for the benefit of “the family” generally, created by plaintiff Julia and her deceased husband, John, as the owners of family property by “having such property conveyed” to Dominic, the defendant, in 1943.

Second: The evidence showed clearly that the transaction occurred in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lieberman v. PresentOhio Court of Appeals · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API