156 N.E. 906 | Ohio | 1927
It appears from the record that the owner of the property described in the amended petition died intestate; that such intestate left neither wife, child, or legal representatives thereof, *437 nor brother or sister of the whole or half blood, or any representative thereof, and his father and mother had died previous to his death; that such property was nonancestral and descends under paragraph 6 of Section 8574, General Code. The next of kin living at the date of the death of said J.L. Seitz, to and of the blood of the intestate, was Michael Sigling, a first cousin. This establishes the class entitled to inherit, and, there being no legal representatives of any deceased members of that class, it follows that Michael Sigling is entitled to all said estate.
The case of Clayton v. Drake,
"The 'next of kin' as used in this statute [Section 8574, General Code, Par. 6] refers to those persons who take intestate property under the statutes of descent and distribution (Steel, Adm'r., v. Kurtz,
Applying this principle, paragraph 6 of Section 8574 is construed to mean that the estate passes to the living next of kin and the legal representatives of deceased next of kin of the same class as the living next of kin.
Finding that Michael Sigling is of the class next of kin to and of the blood of the intestate living at the time of the death of said J.L. Seitz, and that there are no legal representatives of deceased members of that class who would be entitled to share with him in such inheritance under paragraph 6 of Section 8574, General Code, it follows that the courts below were right in sustaining the demurrer of said Michael Sigling to the amended petition, and their judgment in so doing is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MARSHALL, C.J., DAY, ALLEN, KINKADE, ROBINSON, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur. *439