Reeder v. Barr
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a suit in chancery, reserved for decision by the Supreme Court in Hamilton county. The bill sets forth that the complainants are the heirs at law of one Henson Reeder, who died in the year 1811. That some time in the year 1810,' Henson Reeder purchased a certain lot of land, in the city of Cincinnati, of the United States, and paid up r part of the whole of the purchase money, and obtained a certificate therefor, in the usual form, and took possession thereof.
Read the full summary
This was a suit in chancery, reserved for decision by the Supreme Court in Hamilton county. The bill sets forth that the complainants are the heirs at law of one Henson Reeder, who died in the year 1811. That some time in the year 1810,' Henson Reeder purchased a certain lot of land, in the city of Cincinnati, of the United States, and paid up r part of the whole of the purchase money, and obtained a certificate therefor, in the usual form, and took possession thereof. Some time after the death of Henson Reeder, Samuel Newell set up some claim to said *lot, as assignee of the administrator of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The patent was issued to Newell, as assignee of the administrator *419of Henson Beeder, deceased; and the only question is, whether this disclosure of the rights of the patentee, and of the manner in which they were acquired, is sufficient to charge a subsequent purchaser, with notice of the equitable rights of the complainants, as heirs at law of Henson Reeder. The true rule upon this subject appears to be “that the law imputes that notice, which, from the nature of the transaction, every person of ordinary prudence must necessarily have.” 13 Ves. 120; Mad. Ch. 327; Newland, 511.
If,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Polk's Lessee v. WendalSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Polk's Lessee v. WendellSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Denning v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- James v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 1849