Case Name: STAGGE et v. GLEASON
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1933-04-10
Citations: 15 Ohio Law Abs. 591
Docket Number: No 4269
Parties: STAGGE et v GLEASON
Judges: HAMILTON, PJ, and. CUSHING, J, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 15
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
STAGGE et v GLEASON
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No 4269.
Decided April 10, 1933
Harry H. Shafer, Cincinnati, and Gordon D. Wilson, Cincinnati, for plaintiffs in error.
Carl 3?. Pieper, Cincinnati, and D. T. Haekett, Cincinnati, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
OPINION
By ROSS, J.
There is ample evidence, clear and convincing in its character, warranting the conciusion that the agreement contended for by the father was engrafted upon the transaction.
One incident is sufficient to indicate the character of this evidence.
The father became very seriously ill and •was compelled to go to the hospital. He was in serious doubt as to his recovery. He at that time, turned- over to his daughter all of his papers, bank books and the deed in question, which he had continuously retained in his possession.
Upon his unexpected recovery he secured his papers but the deed was retained by the daughter.
We conclude that there is no error prejudicial to the plaintiff in error and the judgment is affirmed.
HAMILTON, PJ, and. CUSHING, J, concur.