Legal Opinion

Koontz v. Hubley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1924No. 18301PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConn, J.

Plaintiff in error cites a well-known rule of law as decisive of the sole question presented in this case, and argues that it compels the devisee under item 6 to assume payment of the legacy sought to be given by item 3. The cited rule is this:

“Where legacies are given generally and no funds provided from which they are to be paid and afterward the residue of the real and personal estate be given in one mass, the legacies constitute a charge upon the whole residuary estate, real as well as personal.”

This court said, in Moon, Admr., v. Stewart, 87 Ohio St., 349, 101 N. E., 344, 45 L. R. A. (N.…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Moore v. McKinleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1955
  2. Holmes, Trustee v. HrobonOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
  3. Kinney v. BoundsOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
  4. Harlan National Bank v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1958
  5. Ward v. WorthingtonOhio Court of Appeals · 1928

2 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