Case Name: WIGANT HASS v. HALIE HASS
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-03-02
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 180
Docket Number: No. 336
Parties: WIGANT HASS v. HALIE HASS
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 180–180

Head Matter:
No. 279
WIGANT HASS v. HALIE HASS
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Wood Co.
No. 336.
Oecided March 2nd, 1925
327 COURTS—Where proceedings to appoint guardian in the Probate Court is appealed to the Common Pleas, latter court on affirmation of judgment, may remand to former for appointment.
Attorneys—Benjamin F James for Wigant; S. W. Bowman for Halie; both of Bowling Green.

Opinion:
RICHARDS, J.
Halie Hass brought the original proceedings in the Wood Probate Court to have a guardian appointed for Wigant Haas who was 83 years of age and mentally incompetent. The Court ordered he should have a guardian whereupon the case was appealed and upon retrial in the Wood Common Pleas the same judgment was rendered.
Error was prosecuted and counsed for Hass urged that prejudicial error was committed because the Common Pleas did not actually appoint the guardian but the- case was remanded to the Probate Court.
The Court of Appeals held:
Even assuming that the Common Pleas should have made the appointment, the remanding of the case to the Probate Court for that purpose would riot result in a reversal of the judgment.
Finding of the lower court that Hass is mentally incompetent and that a guardian should be appointed is justified by the evidence. Judgment affirmed.