Case Name: William C. Murr et al v. Anna Murr, an Infant, by her Guardian
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1907-11
Citations: 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: William C. Murr et al v. Anna Murr, an Infant, by her Guardian.
Judges: Giffen, J.; Swing, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 11
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF MINORS IN PARTITION PROCEEDINGS.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
William C. Murr et al v. Anna Murr, an Infant, by her Guardian.
Decided, November, 1907.
Partition — Failure to Q-Uard Interests of Minor — Appraisement Law— Adult Oo-Parceners Elect to Tahe — Land Afterward Sold for Three Times Its Appraised Value — Accounting—Judgment Against Joint Wrong-doers.
1. Where adult co-parceners conceal from an infant co-parcener the true value of the land, and after taking it at its appraised value sell it at a greatly enhanced figure, they will be required to account to the minor for the profits thus derived.
2. In such a case the court is not bound to apportion the judgment among the joint wrong-doers, but may render a general judgment against all the defendants.
Spangenberg & Spangenberg and John J. Gasser, for plaintiff in error.
J. T. Harrison, contra.
Giffen, J.; Swing, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.
Affirming Murr, an Infant, v. Murr et al, 5 O. L. R,, 125, which see for a statement of the case,'

Opinion:
The plaintiff in her original petition did not seek to set aside the proceedings in the partition suit, because the rights of an innocent purchaser had intervened; but she asked that the defendants be required to account to her for the excess of the proceeds of subsequent sale to this purchaser over the amount of the appraisement, at which one of the defendants elected to take the premises.
The ground of the action was fraud on the part of the defendants in concealing from the plaintiff, an infant, the true value of the premises; and after selling the same a few months after the partition proceedings for nearly three times their ¡appraised value, dividing the proceeds of sale ¡to the exclusion of plaintiff. While the testimony upon this issue was not, .and rarely is, direct and positive, yet the circumstances were quite as convincing, and warranted the court in finding for the plaintiff.
The court is not required to apportion the amount of a judgment among joint wrongdoers, and hence the judgment for the full amount against all the defendants was not erroneous. Judgment affirmed.