Executors of Leiby v. Wolf

Ohio Supreme Court

Executors of Leiby v. Wolf

10 Ohio St. 83

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 Ohio St. 83 (Executors of Leiby v. Wolf) 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

Executors of Leiby v. Wolf, 10 Ohio St. 83 (Ohio 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Lane, C. J.

Whenever the state of the title on record would lead a searcher of incumbrances, who was using common prudence and care in investigating the title, to a knowledge of the fact, the law assumes that he acquired the knowledge of it. A purchaser’, therefore, from Wolf, ought to learn all conveyances, from Wolf, existing on record at the time- of his purchase.

But where the series of deeds runs on a line entirely different, and there is nothing to connect the name or the interests of a third person with any part of it, it would be unreasonable to im[85]*85pule to the searcher a knowledge of the acts of such third person. Here Wolf was not in the connection of title at all; Loring, searching for incumbrances, would, be led, first, to Samuel S. Smith ; next, to Marcus Smith, and third, to the commissioners, 85] without any indication of Wolf’s interests,- or *the notice of any fact showing his relation to the estate. It seems that such a purchaser should be protected from claims which no ordinary prudence could detect.

■Bill dismissed.

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

Lane, C. J.

Whenever the state of the title on record would lead a searcher of incumbrances, who was using common prudence and care in investigating the title, to a knowledge of the fact, the law assumes that he acquired the knowledge of it. A purchaser’, therefore, from Wolf, ought to learn all conveyances, from Wolf, existing on record at the time- of his purchase.

But where the series of deeds runs on a line entirely different, and there is nothing to connect the name or the interests of a third person with any part of it, it would be unreasonable to im[85]*85pule to the searcher a knowledge of the acts of such third person. Here Wolf was not in the connection of title at all; Loring, searching for incumbrances, would, be led, first, to Samuel S. Smith ; next, to Marcus Smith, and third, to the commissioners, 85] without any indication of Wolf’s interests,- or *the notice of any fact showing his relation to the estate. It seems that such a purchaser should be protected from claims which no ordinary prudence could detect.

■Bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio St. 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/executors-of-leiby-v-wolf-ohio-1840.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack