Hayward v. Davidson

41 Ind. 212
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 41 Ind. 212 (Hayward v. Davidson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hayward v. Davidson, 41 Ind. 212 (Ind. 1872).

Opinions

Pettit, C. J.

—The only question in this case is, whether a devise in these words will vest a title in the board of commissioners, or in the county, for the property: “I give and bequeath unto the board of commissioners of Kosciusko county, to be appropriated by the board of commissioners, and their successors in office, for the useof Kosciusko county forever.” These -are not the very words- of the will, but it is agreed this is their purport and intent, and that they are to be so taken and understood as their proper meaning.

Whether the county or board of commissioners is named, is all the same thing in law, for the one is the other for all legal or practicable purposes.

Any person or corporation who can hold land in this State may take by devise. 2 G. & H, 551, sec. I.

[214]*214The board of commissioners is a corporation, and lias all the rights of other corporations, i G. & H. 248, sec. 5-

We hold that the bequest vested in the county of Kosciusko, to be managed by the board of commissioners, or such other body or persons as the general assembly has or may provide to take the place of the board of commissioners, a fee simple and absolute title in the lands thus bequeathed. The laws of Ohio and our own are substantially the same, and the case of Carder v. The Board of Commissioners of Fayette County, 16 Ohio St. 353, is fully, directly, and conclusively in point. All wishing further information on this question are referred to that case, which we fully approve.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellants.

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

Related

National City Bank v. Baldwin
90 Ohio Law. Abs. 228 (Cuyahoga County Probate Court, 1962)
McCaleb v. Shantz
318 S.W.2d 199 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1958)
Campbell v. Board of Com'rs of Oklahoma County
1934 OK 169 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
State-Washington Stores Co. v. Walgreen Co.
272 Ill. App. 383 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Watkins v. Iowa Central Railway Co.
98 N.W. 910 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Farrington v. Putnam
38 L.R.A. 339 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1897)
Gilbert v. Hole
49 N.W. 1 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Sumner v. Darnell
13 L.R.A. 173 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Hamsher v. Hamsher
8 L.R.A. 556 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
In Re the Estate of McGraw
19 N.E. 233 (New York Court of Appeals, 1888)
Griffith v. Sebastian County
49 Ark. 24 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1886)
Barnes v. Suddard
7 N.E. 477 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1886)
Leeds v. City of Richmond
1 N.E. 711 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Alexander v. Tolleston Club
110 Ill. 65 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1884)
Board of Commissioners v. Huff
91 Ind. 333 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Hight v. Board of Commissioners
68 Ind. 575 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Haag v. Board of Comm'rs of Vanderburgh Co.
60 Ind. 511 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)
Holten v. Board of Comm'rs
55 Ind. 194 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Board of Commissioners v. Slatter
52 Ind. 171 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Ind. 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayward-v-davidson-ind-1872.