Abram's Lessee v. Will

Ohio Supreme Court

Abram's Lessee v. Will

6 Ohio 164

DecidedDecember 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio 164 (Abram's Lessee v. Will) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abram's Lessee v. Will, 6 Ohio 164 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

Wright, J.,

announced that as to the second and third points relied on for a new trial, the court were unanimously of opinion, that no error in the court was shown. Whether the laying out the town, paying the taxes, etc., satisfied the jury of an actual possession in the ancestor, was a question for the jury; and that, in a proper case, it was the duty of the court to explain the evidence given to the jury.

That, as to the other point, two of the judges were of opinion that the holder of a final certificate of purchase and payment from the United States land office, has a right of entry, upon which he may recover, against one showing no title, and relying upon a mere naked possession ; while the other two judges thought differently.

This division of opinion operates to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wright, J.,

announced that as to the second and third points relied on for a new trial, the court were unanimously of opinion, that no error in the court was shown. Whether the laying out the town, paying the taxes, etc., satisfied the jury of an actual possession in the ancestor, was a question for the jury; and that, in a proper case, it was the duty of the court to explain the evidence given to the jury.

That, as to the other point, two of the judges were of opinion that the holder of a final certificate of purchase and payment from the United States land office, has a right of entry, upon which he may recover, against one showing no title, and relying upon a mere naked possession ; while the other two judges thought differently.

This division of opinion operates to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-lessee-v-will-ohio-1833.