Longworth v. Goforth

1 Wright 192, 1 Ohio Ch. 192
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1833·Published

Opinion

LANE, J.

The only ground on which the complainant can claim the interference of this court, is that of the defendant’s having at full age confirmed the sale. The title has been adjudged upon at law* and this court cannot review the decision of a court of law. The alleged settlement, receipt of money, &c., in confirmation of the sale, is denied in the answer, and there is no proof; besides, it appears that the defendant was a minor at the period referred to, and incapable of confirming the sale.

The bill is dismissed.

* This doubtless refers to Goforth's Lessee v. Longworth, 4 O. 129.

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

Longworth v. Goforth, 1 Wright 192, 1 Ohio Ch. 192 (Ohio 1833).

1 Wright 192 (Longworth v. Goforth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitzer v. Russel
4 Or. 124 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1871)