Midllesworth v. Robinson
This text of 1 Wright 552 (Midllesworth v. Robinson) 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.
Opinion
We do not discover the error of the court below, which injured the plaintiff in error on which he has reason to complain — if that court erred, in our opinion, it erred in being too favorable to the plaintiff in error. A mortgagor has an interest in the subject of the mortgage, which he can protect by suit. The hag- was at large, in the actual possession of neither the plaintiff below, nor Schofield; by construction of law, he was in thepossession of his owner; and if Robinson was the owner, any use or abuse of him inconsistent with the ownership will enable him to support trover. 'The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Wright 552, 1 Ohio Ch. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midllesworth-v-robinson-ohio-1834.