Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

fill the vacancy in said Commission, occasioned by the resignation of HENRY C. Whitman, and he was sworn into 'office March 18, 1876.

By an act of the General Assembly, of April 6, 1876, it was provided that the decisions of the Supreme Court Commission be reported in separate volumes, and same series of the Ohio State Reports.

The Commission adopted the rules of the Supreme Court, as far as practicable.

Rule VI. is as follows : “A syllabus of the points decided by the court, in each case, shall be stated in writing, by the judge assigned to deliver the opinion of the court, which shall be confined to the points of law arising from the facts of the case that have been determined by the court; and the syllabus shall be submitted to the judges concurring therein, for revisal, before publication thereof; and it shall be inserted in the book of reports, without alteration, unless by consent of the judges concurring therein."

This volume contains the cases for report, decided by the Commission, at the December term, 1877, prior to May 29, 1878.

TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.

Ampt, Harper v........ ............ 291

Farmers' College, The State ex rel. v......

487 Farrell v. The State..............

456 Faurot v. Neff.......................

44 Fife, Elstner v......

358

Gebhart, Estabrook V.........

415 Gibson, Hare v....................

33 Gregg, Hart v........

502 Grepel v. The State.............. 167

Baker v. Pendergast............ 494 Bank, Boyd v. ... ...

526 Bank, Commissioners v......... 194 Bayer, Clark v.........

299 Beard v. Westerman..........

29 Belmont, Holden V............ 585 Berkmeyer v. Kellerman...... 239 Billingheimer v. The State.... 435 Birdsall v. Heacock........ 177 Black v. Hill.......

313 Bloom v. Xenia...

461 Boyd v. Bank.........

526 Brand, Commissioners v........ 202 Campbell v. Park..........

544 Carrington, Drea V........... 595 Carter v. Reddish...

1 Chinn v. Trustees....

236 Cincinnati, Neff v........

215 Clark v. Bayer......

299 Clark v. Potter......................

49 Cohen, Pollock v...... ...........

514 Collins v. Davis..

76 Combs v. Watson.....

228 Commissioners v. Bank.

194 Commissioners v. Brand........ 202 Cox v. John.....

532

Hall v. Hall.......

184 Hare v. Gibson..

33 Harper v. Ampt.....

291 Hart v. Gregg....

502 Heacock, Birdsall v..

177 Henkle v. McClure....

202 Hill, Black v....

313 Hinsey, Dayton V........ 258 Holden v. Belmont...

585 Hoyt v. Day........

101 Hutchins, Railway Co. V........ 571

Infirmary, Railroad Co. V...... 566 Insurance Co. v. Ellis..... 388 Insurance Co. v. Tobin......... 77

Jackson v. Reid....
John, Cox V...........
Johnston, Lahm V.............

443 532 590)

Kellerman, Berkmeyer v...... 239 Kelly, The State v................

421 Koch v. The State.......... 352 Koch v. The State ......

353

Davey, Duval V............
Davis, Collins v.....
Davis v. The State.
Day, Hoyt v.....
Dayton v. Hinsey..
Diebold v. Powell..
Drea v. Carrington
Duval v. Davey..

604
76
24
101
258
173
595
604

Lahm v. Johnston......
Lee v. The State...........
Leiter, Unger v............

590
113
210

Elden, Martin v........
Elliott v. Shaw.......
Ellis, Insurance Co. V.........
Elstner v. Fife........
Estabrook v. Gebhart..
Evans v. Reynolds.....
Everett v. Sumner..

282
431
388
358
415
163
562

McClure, Henkle v........... 202
McCreu v. Martien.....

38 Martien, McCrea v...............

38 Martin v. Elden.......

282 Montgomery v. Swindler...... 224 Moon, Shindelbeck v............ 264 334 Reddish, Carter V............

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Ohio, Billingheimer V........... 435 Ohio, Davis V....

24 Ohio, Farrell v.......

456 Ohio, Grepel v......

167 Ohio v. Kelly.

421 Ohio, Koch V........

352 Ohio, Koch v.........

353 Ohio, Lee V.....

113 Ohio, Roberts v....,

171 Ohio, Schultz V....

276 Ohio ex rel. v. Farmers' College........

487

Sargent v. Railroad Co......... 449 Schultz v. The State............. 276 Shaw, Elliott v..

431 Shindelbeck v. Moon...... 264 Singree v. Welch....... 320 Stringer, Railway Co. V......... 468 Sullivan, Railroad Co. V......... 152 Sumner, Everett v.

562 Swindler, Montgomery v....... 224 State, Billingheimer v............ 435 State, Davis v....

24 State, Farrell v.....................

456 State, Grepel

167 State v. Kelly.....

421 State, Koch v.....

352 State, Koch V.........

353 State, Lee V..........

113 State, Roberts V......

171 State, Schultz v.....

276 State ex rel. v. Farmers' College.......

487

V.......

Park, Campbell v...

544 Pendergast, Baker v.

494 Pennsylvania Co. v. Rathgeb. 66 Peterson v. Roach...

374 Pollock v. Cohen....

514 Porter, Railway Co. V......... 328 Potter, Clark v...

49 Powell, Diebold v.............

173 Railroad Co. v. Infirmary...... 566 Railroad Co., Rice v..............

380 Railroad Co., Sargent V......... 449 Railroad Co. v. Sullivan ........ 152 Railroad Co. v. Transportation Co..

116 Railway Co. v. Hutchins....... 571 Railway Co. v. Porter... 328 Railway Co. v. Rathgeb......... 66 Railway Co. v. Stringer...... 463 Railway Co. v. Valleley......... 345 Rathgeb, Pennsylvania Co. v. 66 Ratliff v. Warner

1 Reid, Jackson v.....

443 Reynolds, Evans V....... 163 Rice, Railroad Co. V....... 380

Taylor, Newton V........ 399
Tobin, Insurance Co. V...... 77
Transportation Co., Railroad
Co. V.........good

116 Trustees, Chinn v.................

236 Unger v. Leiter................. 210 Valleley, Railway Co. v......... 345

8

[blocks in formation]

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT COMMISSION OF OHIO

DECEMBER TERM, 1876.

(AFTER FEBRUARY 9, 1877.)

PRESENT:

Hon. LUTHER DAY, CHIEF JUDGE.
Hon. JOSIAH SCOTT,
Hon. D. THEW WRIGHT,

JUDGES.
Hon. W. W. JOHNSON,
Hox. T. Q. ASHBURN,

JOHN W. CARTER v. LILLIE B. REDDISH ET AL.

1. In the construction of a will, it is well settled as a paramount rule, in this

state, that the intention of the testator, as gathered from the whole will, must control, when such intention is not in conflict with the law or

against public policy. 2. Words in a will are to be understood according to their ordinary, natural,

and legal signification, unless it is manifest from the context, or from other provisions in the will, that the testator has used them in a different sense, and unless the sense in which they were used is clearly ap

parent. 8. Where real estate is devised to A., an infant son of the testator, in gen

eral terms, and the devise is followed by a habendum “during his natural life, and to his heirs," together with a limitation over to certain nephews and nieces, in case A. shall die within age, and without lawful issue, the words “ heirs” in the habendum will be construed as a word of limitaVOL. XXXII-1

1

Carter v. Reddisb.

tion, enlarging the life estate to a defeasible estate in fee-simple, if such construction be conformable to the general scope of the will, and the apparent scheme of disposition, and consistent with all the other provisions of the will; and where a different construction would leave the fee of the premises undisposed of, in the event of A.'s death, without

issue, after becoming of full age. 4. The 47th section of the wills act of 1810, and the corresponding 53d sec

tion of our present wills act, were intended merely to forbid the application of the rule in Shelley's case, where such application would defeat the manifest intention of the testator.

Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

[ocr errors]

The defendants in error, who are the children of Stevenson Reddish, deceased, brought their action in the court below, to recover the possession of a lot in the city of Cincinnati, to which they claim title as devisces in fee under the will of their grandfather, Thomas B. Reddish. Plaintiff in error, who was defendant in the original action, claims title to the same premises, under a conveyance in fee-simple made by Stevenson Reddish in his lifetime. The lot in controversy is one of those devised by the will to Stevenson Reddish; and the rights of the parties depend on the question whether under this will Stevenson Reddish took an estate in fee-simple, or a mere life estate in the property devised to him.

The court below held that the will in question gave to Stevenson but a life estate in the premises, and entered judgment for plaintiffs below.

Plaintiff in error asks a reversal of this judgment on the ground of supposed error in the construction given to the will by the court below.

The testator was possessed of considerable property, both real and personal, and resided in Cincinnati. He had two infant children, Sarah and Stevenson, and a wife, in whom he appears to have had no confidence. He had a brother and sister, residing in Manchester, England, each of whom had a family of children. He made the will in question in March, 1831, when he was contemplating a visit to England. The ship on which he sailed was wrecked on the

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »