Case Name: Goss et al. v. Fiorini et al., Guardians
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-05-29
Citations: 108 Ohio St. 115
Docket Number: No. 17719
Parties: Goss et al. v. Fiorini et al., Guardians.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 108
Pages: 115–117

Head Matter:
Goss et al. v. Fiorini et al., Guardians.
Guardianship—Docketing and notice of proceedings—Validity of deed by ward.
(No. 17719
Decided May 29, 1923.)
Error to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery county.
Mr. Wm. S. Bhotehamel, for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Fiorini & Solimano and Messrs. Murphy, Elliff, Leen <& Murphy, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This was an action to set aside a conveyance, upon the' ground that the grantor, Joseph B. Butt, was, at the time of the execution of the conveyance, an incompetent, under guardianship, by the finding and judgment of the probate court of Montgomery county.
The conveyance was executed on the 25th day of February, 1920. On the 9th day of the same month application fox- the appointment of a guardian had been made in the probate court. On the 12th or 13th day of the same month a hearing was had, and by the judgment of the probate court Joseph B. Bntt was adjudged an incompetent. On the 18th day of the same month an order of the probate court was made appointing Á. J. Fiorini and Arthur EL Leen as guardians of the estate. On the 25th day, being the day of the execution of the conveyance, an inventory was filed, the bond of the guardians was approved and filed, and the costs of the appointment paid.
The probate court, according to a rule of that court, did not docket or record any of the proceedings' until the costs were paid.
The cause was tried in the court of common pleas, where a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants in error here. The cause was appealed, and the Court of Appeals rendered a like judgment. The record was ordered certified by this court upon the mistaken belief that the question of the effect of the failure of the probate court to docket and record the proceedings in the matter of the guardianship was involved.
The record, however, discloses that there was evidence tending to prove that the proceedings in the probate court were docketed immediately prior to the execution of the deed, and that the plaintiffs in error had actual notice of such proceedings and judgment prior to the docketing. The case having been disposed of by the Court of Appeals upon a question of fact, there is no question before this court for its consideration.
The petition in error will therefore be dismissed, at the costs of the plaintiffs in error.
Petition in error dismissed.
Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.