Case ID: ohio-law-abs_30/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NORWOOD v O’BRIEN, Admr.
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co.
    No. 5663.
    Decided Dec. 18, 1939.
    Robert A. Black, Cincinnati, for appellant.
    Hightower & O’Brien, Cincinnati, for appellees.
   OPINION

BY THE COURT:

Heard on appeal' on law and fact.. Plaintiff seeks to engraft a resulting trust on a deed absolute, by parol evidence.

The law is that a resulting trust maybe proved by parol evidence, but the proof must be clear, certain, and convincing. Harvey v Gardiner, 41 Oh St. 642; Mannix v Purcell, et, 46 Oh St 102; Russell, et v Bruer, et 64 Oh St 1; Boughman v Boughman, 69 Oh St 273.

The evidence in this case fails to meet the requirements under the rule,, and a decree for the dfendants, appellees here, dismissing appellant’s petition, at his costs, will be entered.

HAMILTON, PJ., MATTHEWS & ROSS, JJ., concur.