Holtsberry v. Bounds

Licking Circuit Court

Holtsberry v. Bounds

9 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 510

DecidedMarch 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 510 (Holtsberry v. Bounds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Licking Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holtsberry v. Bounds, 9 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 510 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Taggart, J.,

dissenting.

I desire to enter a dissent to the judgment and opinion of the courts in this case, believing as I do that the testimony shows that the use of this way by the plaintiff, and those through whom he claims title, was simply permissive, and not adverse, nor under a claim of right; and therefore the judgment of the court is not warranted by the facts or by the law of the ease.

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

Taggart, J.,

dissenting.

I desire to enter a dissent to the judgment and opinion of the courts in this case, believing as I do that the testimony shows that the use of this way by the plaintiff, and those through whom he claims title, was simply permissive, and not adverse, nor under a claim of right; and therefore the judgment of the court is not warranted by the facts or by the law of the ease.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holtsberry-v-bounds-ohcirctlicking-1905.