Legal Opinion

Dennison v. Foster

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1839PublishedCited by 7 opinions

In Ciianoert. From Hamilton. This bill is brought to quiet the plaintiff’s title to lot 92 in Cincinnati, or to have partition of that lot and out-lot 20, late belonging to the heirs of John Cutter in such form, that the plaintiff who holds a part of the title may protect his possession of lot 92. The plaintiff holds by purchase from William Woodward and Samuel Foster in 1808. Woodward and Foster at that time claimed a ■ complete title to both lots.

Read the full summary

In Ciianoert. From Hamilton. This bill is brought to quiet the plaintiff’s title to lot 92 in Cincinnati, or to have partition of that lot and out-lot 20, late belonging to the heirs of John Cutter in such form, that the plaintiff who holds a part of the title may protect his possession of lot 92. The plaintiff holds by purchase from William Woodward and Samuel Foster in 1808. Woodward and Foster at that time claimed a ■ complete title to both lots. There has since been much litigation concerning them, and suits recently decided, 8 Ohio, 87, and in Lessee of Foster v. Dennison, ante 121, and…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Lane, C. J.

Since the eases heretofore decided upon the interests of these parties, there remains nothing to be settled in this suit, except the claim set up by Dennison, that the first purchaser •of a specific defined tract, from a tenant in common, may require from the co-tenant to apart his share from that part of the whole tract last sold by his grantor. That as Woodward and Samuel Foster, who claimed the whole of lots 92 and 20, first sold 92 to M’Olelland, under whom the plaintiff takes title, and as Joseph C. Foster has recovered ■an undivided fourth in both lots by these…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Boggess v. MeredithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Worthington v. StauntonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Elmore v. ElmoreSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  4. Johnson v. MacIntyreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  5. Solesberry v. Virginian Railway Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1914

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API