Legal Opinion
Morgridge v. Converse
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 4, 1948No. 31055PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
The defendants have presented and argued to this court two questions:
“1. Did the referee in bankruptcy have jurisdiction to order the sale of the reversionary interest in the homestead which had previously been set off to Henry B. Converse?
“2. Did the proceedings in the case filed by Eliza beth B. Converse on April 23, 1915, after the death of Henry B. Converse, and the judgment rendered by the Common Pleas Court in that action on September 18, 1918, operate as res judicata of this present proceedings ? ”
The defense of res judicata was presented by the amended answer of the defendants in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lockwood v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Hull v. DicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Lucius v. Cawthon-Coleman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Bingham v. Nypano Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lincoln Properties, Inc. v. GoldslagerOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Smith v. PhlegarArizona Supreme Court · 1951
- Matter of PaganUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 1986
- State Ex Rel. Chambers v. County Court of Mingo CountyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1961
- Toledo Edison Co. v. Don King Construction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.