Case ID: ohio-law-abs_18/html/0206-01.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

UNION TRUST CO OF DAYTON et v REPINE
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co
    No 1254.
    Decided Nov 23, 1934
    John W. Bricker, Attorney General, Columbus, By Special Counsel H. A. Estabrook, Dayton, and Sidney G.- Kusworm, Dayton, for plaintiffs in error.
    Horace J. Boesch, Dayton, and Robert' C. Boesch, Dayton, for defendants in error.
   OPINION

By THE COURT

Judgment entry is submitted in this cause without the allowance of interest on the principal sum of the judgment. It is insisted by counsel that the defendant in error is entitled to an additional allowance of interest. Inasmuch as this claim is predicated upon a finding of an amount due from a guardian to its ward, it comes within the provisions of §§10933 and 10506-46 GC, and is a claim upon which the Probate Court would, in all probability, charge interest.

We are, therefore, of opinion that interest should be included, in the judgment entry in this cause and have so provided in the entry which was tendered to the court.