Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 649
    WATSON, Admx. v. WATSON et
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
    No. 2699.
    Decided June 22, 1925
    32. ADMINISTRATORS — Where administratrix acts in a fiduciary capacity in the interests of the trust; a bond need not be filed on appeal from an order of Probate Court ordering distribution of proceeds from sale of real estate to pay debts.
    Attorneys — J. A. Scanlon, for pltf; H. H. Hosbrook, for Woods; W. J. Overbeck for Bldg. Co., J. T. barney, Guardian Ad Litem for min- or defendants; all of Cincinnati.
   PER CURIAM.

Kathryn Watson, administratrix of the estate of Fred Watson, brought this action originally in the Hamilton Probate Court to sell real estate to pay debts. The property was sold to one Albert S. Wood, who held a second mortgage thereon.

The administratrix subsequently filed a motion to set asfSe the appraisement and sale, on the ground that the description of the real estate throughout the proceedings was incorrect. Woods filed an assignment to himself of the first mortgage’and in his supplemental answer alleged that he was the owner of both mortgage liens. The court, on Wood’s motion, confirmed the sale. The description was corrected and distribution ordered.

An appeal was taken to the Hamilton Common Pleas, notice of which was given but no bond filed. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to file bond and the court granted the motion. Error was prosecuted from this judgment and the Court of Appeals held:

1. From an examination of papers required to be filed'under 11210 GC., it is clear that the appeal from the Probate Court was taken by the administratrix in a fiduciary capacity and was in the interests of the trust; she having given bond for faithful performance of her duties.
2. This is in accordance with 11209 GC. allowing such an appeal without bond.
3. The order dismissing the appeal was er.roneous and prejudicial and judgment will be reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.