Perry v. Magee

Ohio Supreme Court

Perry v. Magee

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 707

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1924

DocketNo. 18703

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 707 (Perry v. Magee) 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.

Bluebook

Perry v. Magee, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 707 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Magee brought an action in Ottawa Common Pleas to quiet title to certain marsh lands situated therein and to enjoin the Perrys and Velliquette from hunting and trapping on same. Magee claimed) a deed from the Crane Creek Shocting Club. The Perrys claimed adverse possession, and moved for a verdict on the ground that by 11901 GC. Magee could not maintain his action because he did not show possession.

The Common Pleas found for the Perrys.

The 'Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas, on the ground that the evidence did show sufficient possession to constitute adverse possession.

Attorneys — Boggs & Doty, Toledo, and Lawrence C. Rupp, Port Clinton, for Perrys; Price & Stahl, Toledo, for Magee.

The Perrys claimed error on the ground that Magee did not show possession, as required by 11901 GC., and that Magee’s action should have been in ejectment.

Also that the action of the Court of Appeals was a violation of Art. 14, Sec. I, of the U. S. Constitution, and of Sec. 16, Art. I, Ohio Constitution, and constituted the taking of private property without due process of law.

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

Magee brought an action in Ottawa Common Pleas to quiet title to certain marsh lands situated therein and to enjoin the Perrys and Velliquette from hunting and trapping on same. Magee claimed) a deed from the Crane Creek Shocting Club. The Perrys claimed adverse possession, and moved for a verdict on the ground that by 11901 GC. Magee could not maintain his action because he did not show possession.

The Common Pleas found for the Perrys.

The 'Court of Appeals reversed the Common Pleas, on the ground that the evidence did show sufficient possession to constitute adverse possession.

Attorneys — Boggs & Doty, Toledo, and Lawrence C. Rupp, Port Clinton, for Perrys; Price & Stahl, Toledo, for Magee.

The Perrys claimed error on the ground that Magee did not show possession, as required by 11901 GC., and that Magee’s action should have been in ejectment.

Also that the action of the Court of Appeals was a violation of Art. 14, Sec. I, of the U. S. Constitution, and of Sec. 16, Art. I, Ohio Constitution, and constituted the taking of private property without due process of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-magee-ohio-1924.