Long v. Long
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Oglesbee v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Wagers v. DickeyOhio Supreme Court · 1848
- Carroll v. Lessee of OlmstedOhio Supreme Court · 1847
- Welsh v. WeyrichOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walker v. Lucas County Board of CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Stone v. Washington Regional Medical CenterCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2016
- Peters v. AllisonOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Stone v. Washington Reg'l Med. Ctr.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2016