Court Opinion

ID: 9816688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:27:11.013435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:20.267404
License: Public Domain

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
No. 1601. Decided Feb. 7, 1940.
BY THE COURT:
This matter is now considered upon the application for rehearing filed by counsel for defendant-appellant on January 25, 1940.
We have carefully re-read our former opinion and re-examined the authorities there cited and have likewise studied the accompanying memoranda filed by applicant.
The applicant enumerates six separate reasons, which are asserted in support of the application. While six reasons are asserted, they might all be encompassed in the single reason, that, in the opinion of the applicant, the Court’s decision was erroneous and should be now re-considered and reversed.
We find nothing new presented in the memoranda which was not given consideration at the time the opinion was announced.
The. case is of interest and possibly involves enough to justify an application for certification to the Supreme Court, but so far as this Court is concerned, we find no reason to reverse our former position.
Application for rehearing denied.
HORNBECK, PJ., GEIGER & BARNES, JJ., concur.
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CERTIFY RECORD
No. 1601. Decided Feb. 29, 1940.
BY THE COURT:
This matter is before the court on an application for an order certifying the record to the Supreme Court for the reason that the judgment upon which this Court has agreed is in conflict with the judgment pronounced upon the same question by the Court of Appeals of Ashland County, Ohio, m the case of Imhoff v Imhoff et, reported in 59 Oh Ap 394. The Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 6, provides that:
“and whenever the judges of a court of appeals find that a judgment upon which they have agreed is in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by any other court of appeals of the state the judges shall, certify the record of the case to the Supreme Court for review and final determination."
It is earnestly asserted by defendant-appellant that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Welles et, Appellees v Pape, Appellant, 62 Oh Ap P. 432, is in conflict with the judgment of the Ashland County Court of Appeals. We have carefully read and compared the two decisions and arrive at the conclusion that they are not in conflict upon the “same question”. It is true they both relate to a construction of an item of a will. In the Welles case this Court held that under the will there in question there is a contingent remainder to be vested upon the death of a life tenant. The Imhoff case holds that the will there under consideration creates a vested interest in the class named, the members of which are to be determined as of the time of the death of the testator and not as of the time of distribution. Comparing the provisions of the two wills we detect a marked difference which need not be commented upon, but which in our judgment renders the two decisions not in conflict upon the “same question”.
Application for order certifying conflict denied.
HORNBECK, PJ., GEIGER & BARNES, JJ., concur.