Case ID: ohio-law-abs_19/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By HAMILTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PLATT v RUSSELL et
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
    No 4703.
    Decided March 4, 1935
    George W. Platt, Cincinnati, for plaintiff.
    Charles E. Dornette, Cincinnati, and Carl Phares, Cincinnati, for defendants.
   OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

It is clear from the evidence offered by the plaintiff that her deceased mother recognized the rent as an obligation on her part. So that there was ample consideration for the contract, and the fact that it was not signed by Mildred Russell Platt does not take away the- binding contractual character, for the reason that Mildred Russell Platt recognized the contract as a contract and performed thereunder. It is in the evidence, and not disputed, that the mother failed to leave a will leaving the jewelry to her daughter.

Our conclusion is that the equities are with the plaintiff, and a decree may be entered accordingly-

ROSS, PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.