Massachusetts rule in Ohio

1965A number of reasons suggest themselves to support the Massachusetts rule. ‘The law favors an equal distribution of an estate among the children of the deceased owner; and it favors a distribution between near and remote heirs per stirpes in preference to per capita.’ Kilgore v. Kilgore, 127 Ind., 276 , 26 N. E., 56 .

1965A number of reasons suggest themselves to support the Massachusetts rule. ‘The law favors an equal distribution of an estate among the children of the deceased owner; and it favors a distribution between near and remote heirs per stirpes in preference to per capita.’ Kilgore v. Kilgore, 127 Ind., 276 , 26 N. E., 56 .

1962In both of these cases the Ohio Supreme Court expressly followed the Massachusetts rule established in Dumaine v. Dumaine, 16 N. E. (2d), 625 (1938), 301 Mass., 214 , which treats capital gains and stock dividends as principal in the absence of a discretionary allocation clause.

1962In both of these cases the Ohio Supreme Court expressly followed the Massachusetts rule established in Dumaine v. Dumaine, 16 N. E. (2d), 625 (1938), 301 Mass., 214 , which treats capital gains and stock dividends as principal in the absence of a discretionary allocation clause.

1937In Ohio we have followed the Massachusetts rule set forth in Minot v Paine, 99 Mass. 101 , that in the distribution of dividends whether ordinary or extraordinary that the life tenant is entitled to cash dividends and that stock dividends go to the corpus of the remaindermen.

1937In Ohio we have followed the Massachusetts rule set forth in Minot v Paine, 99 Mass. 101 , that in the distribution of dividends whether ordinary or extraordinary that the life tenant is entitled to cash dividends and that stock dividends go to the corpus of the remaindermen.

1980This court is cognizant of Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Kirkham (1969), 21 Ohio Misc. 163 .

1980This court is cognizant of Dollar Savings & Trust Co. v. Kirkham (1969), 21 Ohio Misc. 163 .

1980Bank (1962), 344 Mass. 1 , 181 N. E. 2d 6 .” Id., at page 359.

1980Bank (1962), 344 Mass. 1 , 181 N. E. 2d 6 .” Id., at page 359.

1963In ease the depositor dies before the beneficiary without revocation, or some decisive act or declaration of disaffirmance, the presumption arises that an absolute trust was created * * V’ This New York, or Totten, rule clashes head-on with the Massachusetts rule, which is best stated, as follows, in O’Hara, Admx., v. O’Hara (1935), 291 Mass., 75 , 77 : “It is so common for an owner of personalty to put the apparent title in his own name as trustee for another who furnishes no consideration, without any intent to create a genuine present interest in that other, or to surrender any part of his

1963In ease the depositor dies before the beneficiary without revocation, or some decisive act or declaration of disaffirmance, the presumption arises that an absolute trust was created * * V’ This New York, or Totten, rule clashes head-on with the Massachusetts rule, which is best stated, as follows, in O’Hara, Admx., v. O’Hara (1935), 291 Mass., 75 , 77 : “It is so common for an owner of personalty to put the apparent title in his own name as trustee for another who furnishes no consideration, without any intent to create a genuine present interest in that other, or to surrender any part of his

1955In the case oí Equitable Trust Co. of New York, Trustee, v. Prentice, 250 N. Y., 1 , 164 N. E., 723 , 63 A. L.

1955In the case oí Equitable Trust Co. of New York, Trustee, v. Prentice, 250 N. Y., 1 , 164 N. E., 723 , 63 A. L.

1955Among those cases are American Security & Trust Co. v. Frost, 117 F. (2d), 283, certiorari denied, 312 U. S., 707 , 85 L.

1955Among those cases are American Security & Trust Co. v. Frost, 117 F. (2d), 283, certiorari denied, 312 U. S., 707 , 85 L.

1955Among those cases are American Security & Trust Co. v. Frost, 117 F. (2d), 283, certiorari denied, 312 U. S., 707 , 85 L.

1955Among those cases are American Security & Trust Co. v. Frost, 117 F. (2d), 283, certiorari denied, 312 U. S., 707 , 85 L.

1955R., 1368; Kirby v. Kirby, 68 S. D., 612, 5 N. W. (2d), 405 ; all holding that stock dividends are principal and not income, in conformity to the so-called Massachusetts rule.

1955R., 1368; Kirby v. Kirby, 68 S. D., 612, 5 N. W. (2d), 405 ; all holding that stock dividends are principal and not income, in conformity to the so-called Massachusetts rule.

1951In Proctor v. American Security Trust Co., 69 App., D.C., 70, 98 F.2d 599 , the court approved and followed the New York rule. 1 Restatement of the Law of Trusts, 695, Section 234, states the New York rule.

1951In Proctor v. American Security Trust Co., 69 App., D.C., 70, 98 F.2d 599 , the court approved and followed the New York rule. 1 Restatement of the Law of Trusts, 695, Section 234, states the New York rule.

1951Ohio has followed the Massachusetts rule and this principle of law is laid down in Davidson v. Minors Mechanics Savings Trust Co., Exr., 129 Ohio St. 418 , *Page 49 195 N.E. 845 , the third paragraph of the syllabus of which is as follows: "Where one is bequeathed the income from certain property for life, he is entitled to such income from the death of the testator, in the absence of anything in the will to the contrary." In the course of the opinion, on page 429, the court stated: "It is stated in 2 Perry on Trusts and Trustees (7 Ed.), 939, Section 551, that `the general rule is now well es

1951Ohio has followed the Massachusetts rule and this principle of law is laid down in Davidson v. Minors Mechanics Savings Trust Co., Exr., 129 Ohio St. 418 , *Page 49 195 N.E. 845 , the third paragraph of the syllabus of which is as follows: "Where one is bequeathed the income from certain property for life, he is entitled to such income from the death of the testator, in the absence of anything in the will to the contrary." In the course of the opinion, on page 429, the court stated: "It is stated in 2 Perry on Trusts and Trustees (7 Ed.), 939, Section 551, that `the general rule is now well es

1951Ohio has followed the Massachusetts rule and this principle of law is laid down in Davidson v. Minors Mechanics Savings Trust Co., Exr., 129 Ohio St. 418 , *Page 49 195 N.E. 845 , the third paragraph of the syllabus of which is as follows: "Where one is bequeathed the income from certain property for life, he is entitled to such income from the death of the testator, in the absence of anything in the will to the contrary." In the course of the opinion, on page 429, the court stated: "It is stated in 2 Perry on Trusts and Trustees (7 Ed.), 939, Section 551, that `the general rule is now well es

1951Ohio has followed the Massachusetts rule and this principle of law is laid down in Davidson v. Minors Mechanics Savings Trust Co., Exr., 129 Ohio St. 418 , *Page 49 195 N.E. 845 , the third paragraph of the syllabus of which is as follows: "Where one is bequeathed the income from certain property for life, he is entitled to such income from the death of the testator, in the absence of anything in the will to the contrary." In the course of the opinion, on page 429, the court stated: "It is stated in 2 Perry on Trusts and Trustees (7 Ed.), 939, Section 551, that `the general rule is now well es

1946Analyzing the Massachusetts rule, as announced in International Textbook Co. v. Martin, 221 Mass., 1 , 108 N. E., 469 , we find it, predicated on independent covenants aiid a father’s guaranty.

1946Analyzing the Massachusetts rule, as announced in International Textbook Co. v. Martin, 221 Mass., 1 , 108 N. E., 469 , we find it, predicated on independent covenants aiid a father’s guaranty.

1942Seemingly these cases support the appellee’s view; but if the later case of Wight v. Wight, 272 Mass., 154 , 172 N. E., 335 , is carefully examined, it will be disclosed that the Massachusetts rule comports with the general rules respecting res judicata in those states which have no statutes covering dismissal of actions without prejudice.

1942Seemingly these cases support the appellee’s view; but if the later case of Wight v. Wight, 272 Mass., 154 , 172 N. E., 335 , is carefully examined, it will be disclosed that the Massachusetts rule comports with the general rules respecting res judicata in those states which have no statutes covering dismissal of actions without prejudice.

1938Among the cases advocating the Massachusetts rule are the following: Treadwell v Cordis, 5 Gray 341 , Mass. 1855, McDonough v Montague, 259 Mass. 612 , Old Colony Trust Co. v Smith, 266 Mass. 500 , Wachovia Bank & Tr.

1938Among the cases advocating the Massachusetts rule are the following: Treadwell v Cordis, 5 Gray 341 , Mass. 1855, McDonough v Montague, 259 Mass. 612 , Old Colony Trust Co. v Smith, 266 Mass. 500 , Wachovia Bank & Tr.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938The New York and English rule should be considered together, as they are based upon the same fundamental theories and reasonings. •Among the cases championing the New York-English rule are the following: Williamson v Williamson, 6 Paige 98 (N. Y. 1837), Matter of Benson, 96 N. Y. 499 , Matter of Ryan, 140 Misc. 364 , Matter of Reese, 141 Misc. 428 , Wethered v Safe Deposit Trust Co., 79 Md. 153 , York v Maryland Trust Co., 150 Md. 354 , Proctor v American Sec. & Trust Co., 98 Fed. (2d), 599, Equitable Trust Co. v Kent, 11 Del.

1938Co. v Jones, 210 N. C. 339 , City Bank Farmers’ Trust Co. v Taylor, 53 R.

1937See Towne v Eisner, 245 U. S. 418 ; Eisner v Macomber, 252 U. S. 189 .

1937See Towne v Eisner, 245 U. S. 418 ; Eisner v Macomber, 252 U. S. 189 .

1937See Lamb v Lehman, 110 Oh St 59, 42 A.L.R. 437 ; Fifth-Third Union Trust Company v Davis, 4 O.O. 455 , affirmed 7 O.O. 29 , 55 Oh Ap 377, ( 22 Abs 540 ).

1937See Lamb v Lehman, 110 Oh St 59, 42 A.L.R. 437 ; Fifth-Third Union Trust Company v Davis, 4 O.O. 455 , affirmed 7 O.O. 29 , 55 Oh Ap 377, ( 22 Abs 540 ).

1929Loloff v. Sterling, 31 Colo., 102 , 71 P., 1113 .