Legal Opinion

Long v. Long

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1976No. 75-356PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.

I

The unique issue in this case concerns the nature of the interest remaining in the grantor, Henry Long, after the creation by deed of a fee tail estate which was conveyed by the grantor to his son “Jesse S. Long, and the children of his body begotten, and their heirs and assigns forever. ’ ’

The parties agree that the estate created by the grantor was a fee tail. Pollock v. Speidel (1867), 17 Ohio St. 439.

Appellant maintains that the interest remaining in the grantor is a “possibility of reverter” which is a descendible, devisable estate at the death of the original grantor of the estate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Oglesbee v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Wagers v. DickeyOhio Supreme Court · 1848
  3. Carroll v. Lessee of OlmstedOhio Supreme Court · 1847
  4. Welsh v. WeyrichOhio Court of Appeals · 1952

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Walker v. Lucas County Board of CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Stone v. Washington Regional Medical CenterCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2016
  3. Peters v. AllisonOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Stone v. Washington Reg'l Med. Ctr.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API