Taylor v. Foote's Administrators

Ohio Supreme Court

Taylor v. Foote's Administrators

1 Wright 356

DecidedAugust 15, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 356 (Taylor v. Foote's Administrators) 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

Taylor v. Foote's Administrators, 1 Wright 356 (Ohio 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

These notes, though not negotiable at law, so as to confer upon the assignee a right to sue in his own name, are held in equity as negotiated. The lien for the purchase money is a right of the vendor, and cannot pass into other hands as an incident to the obligation, or the land, if conveyed by the vendor; Jackman v. Hallock, 1 O. 319; and Tiernan v. Beane, 2 O. 383, are conclusive on this point; so is Williams v. Roberts, 5 O. 35.

The bill is dismissed.

[Vendor’s lien is valid without a decree; Martin v. Johnson, 7 O. 1st pt. 225, 226.]

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

BY THE COURT.

These notes, though not negotiable at law, so as to confer upon the assignee a right to sue in his own name, are held in equity as negotiated. The lien for the purchase money is a right of the vendor, and cannot pass into other hands as an incident to the obligation, or the land, if conveyed by the vendor; Jackman v. Hallock, 1 O. 319; and Tiernan v. Beane, 2 O. 383, are conclusive on this point; so is Williams v. Roberts, 5 O. 35.

The bill is dismissed.

[Vendor’s lien is valid without a decree; Martin v. Johnson, 7 O. 1st pt. 225, 226.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-footes-administrators-ohio-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack