Ritchy v. Martin

Ohio Supreme Court

Ritchy v. Martin

1 Wright 441, 1 Ohio Ch. 441

DecidedSeptember 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 441 (Ritchy v. Martin) 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

Ritchy v. Martin, 1 Wright 441, 1 Ohio Ch. 441 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, J.

The deceased, Post, was the common source of title to the horse. The plaintiff claimed as the donee of Post, and the defendant as the vendee of Post’s administrators, the same interest. It would seem hardly to admit of doubt that Post’s declarations were evidence against his own title, and that the defendant, who claimed only to have afterwards come in to his right, could not object to it. We think the evidence competent. .The judgment is reversed.

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

WRIGHT, J.

The deceased, Post, was the common source of title to the horse. The plaintiff claimed as the donee of Post, and the defendant as the vendee of Post’s administrators, the same interest. It would seem hardly to admit of doubt that Post’s declarations were evidence against his own title, and that the defendant, who claimed only to have afterwards come in to his right, could not object to it. We think the evidence competent. .The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 441, 1 Ohio Ch. 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritchy-v-martin-ohio-1833.