McArthur v. Nevill
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a bill in chancery by a junior patentee against one in possession, under an elder patent, to obtain title and possession of certain lands in Pickaway county. The case' involved many important questions connected with the construction of a series of entries. It was adjourned here for decision from the county of Pickaway, and very elaborately argued by Leonard, for the complainant, and Scott, Grimke, and Murphy, for the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery by a junior patentee against one in possession, under an elder patent, to obtain title and possession of certain lands in Pickaway county. The case' involved many important questions connected with the construction of a series of entries. It was adjourned here for decision from the county of Pickaway, and very elaborately argued by Leonard, for the complainant, and Scott, Grimke, and Murphy, for the defendants. As the case is fully stated in the opinion of the court by Judge Bur-net, and the points decided clearly explained, no abstract of the arguments is given.…
1Opinion of the Court
^Opinion of the court, by
Judge Burnet:
The pleadings and exhibits present a number of questions which *168have been argued by counsel at considerable length, but which the court have not thought it necessary either to consider or decide. Our attention has been directed to two questions only, which seem to embrace the merits of the case.
1. The effect of the several surveys made at different times on the entry in the name of Tench, assignee.
2. The true construction of Bose’s entry, No. 441, on which all the subsequent entries, including those in dispute, connected with it on the river above, must…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Evans's Heirs v. Manson's ExecutorsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1808