Ohio Circuit Courts, 1898

Hughes v. Dale

Hughes v. Dale
Ohio Circuit Courts · Decided January 15, 1898 · Cox, Smith, Swing
16 Ohio C.C. 645

Counsel

Oliver B. Jones and Scott Bonham, for the Operatives., Schwab & Schultz, for the Bank.

Hughes v. Dale

Opinion of the Court

Swing, J.; Cox, J., concurs; Smith, J., dissents.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment of the court of common pleas in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that the property levied upon by the bank did not pass to the assignee and become part of the assets of this trust by virtue of the assignment, but passed by virtue of an agreement between the bank and the assignee, and therefore did not become assets in his hands as such assignee, to be distributed according to law.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.