Hotchkiss v. Glasgow

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio

Hotchkiss v. Glasgow

12 F. Cas. 551, 5 McLean 424

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio

DecidedApril 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 551 (Hotchkiss v. Glasgow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hotchkiss v. Glasgow, 12 F. Cas. 551, 5 McLean 424 (circtdoh 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP THE COURT. To sustain-the title a deed was offered for the premises from Nathaniel Sawyer to Hotchkiss, which was objected to, as the conveyance was only colorable, to give jurisdiction to the court. Hotchkiss is the son-in-law of Sawyer. The consideration named in the deed is the sum of ten dollars. THE COURT held the deed was good upon its face, as between the parties. In his correspondence with the counsel (Mr. Taft), Mr. Hotchkiss claimed the land as his own. A patent was then offered, to John Lee and Rebecca Greenwood. A deed was then offered • from the heirs of Lee to Nathaniel Sawyer, and proof was given that the grantors were the heirs of Lee. A patent to Sawyer and Baylor was then read in evidence. A proceeding was then read in chancery, decreeing the title of Baylor’s heirs to Sawyer. A deed, dated 18th June, 1S39, was then read from Rebecca Greenwood to N. Sawyer. • The copy of the original deed from R. Greenwood was offered, certified by the recorder, but not authenticated by the seal of that officer. THE COURT held that the copy was not authenticated as the statute required, and a nonsuit was, consequently, suffered. A motion to set aside the nonsuit was submitted, but THE COURT overruled the motion.

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

OPINION OP THE COURT. To sustain-the title a deed was offered for the premises from Nathaniel Sawyer to Hotchkiss, which was objected to, as the conveyance was only colorable, to give jurisdiction to the court. Hotchkiss is the son-in-law of Sawyer. The consideration named in the deed is the sum of ten dollars. THE COURT held the deed was good upon its face, as between the parties. In his correspondence with the counsel (Mr. Taft), Mr. Hotchkiss claimed the land as his own. A patent was then offered, to John Lee and Rebecca Greenwood. A deed was then offered • from the heirs of Lee to Nathaniel Sawyer, and proof was given that the grantors were the heirs of Lee. A patent to Sawyer and Baylor was then read in evidence. A proceeding was then read in chancery, decreeing the title of Baylor’s heirs to Sawyer. A deed, dated 18th June, 1S39, was then read from Rebecca Greenwood to N. Sawyer. • The copy of the original deed from R. Greenwood was offered, certified by the recorder, but not authenticated by the seal of that officer. THE COURT held that the copy was not authenticated as the statute required, and a nonsuit was, consequently, suffered. A motion to set aside the nonsuit was submitted, but THE COURT overruled the motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Cas. 551, 5 McLean 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotchkiss-v-glasgow-circtdoh-1853.