Lessee of Hughey v. Horrel & Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, tried before Judges Burnet and Sherman, at the July Term, 1826, in the county of Madison. As the case turned on the sufficiency of the defendant’s testimony, who claimed under a tax title, it is not necessary to state more of the case than will be sufficient to present the points on which it was decided. It appeared from the testimony, that the county line divided the land, part of it being in Madison and part in Pickaway.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried before Judges Burnet and Sherman, at the July Term, 1826, in the county of Madison. As the case turned on the sufficiency of the defendant’s testimony, who claimed under a tax title, it is not necessary to state more of the case than will be sufficient to present the points on which it was decided. It appeared from the testimony, that the county line divided the land, part of it being in Madison and part in Pickaway. The land was entered for taxation in the county of Madison, in the name of E. Prichard, who lived on that part of the tract which was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
Section 9 of the act of 1820, under which the land in question was listed and sold, makes it the duty of the county auditor to call on each resident proprietor of lands within his county, and take a list of all his lands subject to taxation within the county, with a proviso, “that all lands lying within the Yirginia military district, which shall be divided by county lines, so as to leave parts of said tracts in two or more counties, shall be listed by the proprietor, in the county in which he lives.” By section 13, it is made the duty of the auditor, on failure of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Albertson v. LecaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1982
- Pleasant Management, LLC v. CarrascoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2005
- Weeks v. GilmantonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881