Long v. Long
Ohio Supreme Court
45 Ohio St. 2d 165, 343 N.E.2d 100 (1976)
- Written by Patrick Busch, JD
Facts
In 1919, Henry Long conveyed three tracts of land in fee tail to his three children, Jesse Long, Edward Long, and Emma Long Olinger. The deed granted the land to “Jesse S. Long, and the children of his body begotten, and their heirs and assigns forever.” Henry died in 1932, and his will contained no general residuary clause (a clause specifying the disposition of property not otherwise mentioned in the will). In 1945, Jesse quitclaimed his interest in the land to Rosella Long, who died testate, making Marie Ethel Brown and her husband John Brown her sole beneficiaries. They in turn quitclaimed their interest in the property to Howard W. Long (plaintiff) and his wife Esther Naomi Long. Howard was Henry Long’s grandson and Edward Long’s son. Jesse died intestate and without issue in 1974. Edward Long died intestate in 1946, survived by his wife Emma and sons Howard and Eugene. Emma died in 1964; her will divided her residuary estate equally between her two sons. Eugene died in 1966; his will named his wife Bessie Long (defendant) as his sole beneficiary and specifically mentioned the real estate that was conveyed to Jesse. Emma Long Olinger died intestate in 1954, survived only by her son, Paul H. Olinger (plaintiff). Paul and Howard brought suit against Bessie, seeking a declaration of their interests in the property. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of Ohio, with the parties agreeing that the estate created by Henry Long was a fee tail. The parties disagreed as to how the property would be disposed of after Jesse died without issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.