Ohio Court of Appeals October 28, 1932 (Ospeke v. Sabo)

FARR, J.

Now, it is claimed upon the part of the plaintiff in error that Louis Sabo would not be entitled to recover in this case because it is said that the family relation existed in contemplation of the principle announced in the case of Hinkle et, Executors v Sage, 67 Oh St, 256, where it was held that there could be no recovery save upon an express contract between relatives, or facts and