Lessee of Reed v. Marsh
Ohio Supreme Court
This is an action of ejectment reserved from the county of Scioto. The defendant is proprietor of fractional section 6, in township 2, of range 21, entered in 1804, by Fullerton and Clapperton, pat•ented to their assignees, Calhouse & Henderson, in 1812, and by them conveyed to him. . , The plaintiff owns five hundred and fourteen acres, from the north side of fractional section 5, in the same township, which was entered by James Stump, April 13, 1813, assigned to the…
Read the full summary
This is an action of ejectment reserved from the county of Scioto. The defendant is proprietor of fractional section 6, in township 2, of range 21, entered in 1804, by Fullerton and Clapperton, pat•ented to their assignees, Calhouse & Henderson, in 1812, and by them conveyed to him. . , The plaintiff owns five hundred and fourteen acres, from the north side of fractional section 5, in the same township, which was entered by James Stump, April 13, 1813, assigned to the plaintiff and patented to him in 1827. The point in litigation is the line between sections 5 and 6. The corner maintained the…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
The question arising upon these facts is, whether a.corner set in a survey, made under the act of 1796, is so absolutely unalterable, that a subsequent surveyor is bound to adopt it, however erroneous, as an element of later subdivisions, or whether, in Case' the lines of subdivision are so run as to correct the mistake, and the survey and field notes are deposited in the proper office, a-. subsequent purchaser may disregard the completed survey, and extend his boundaries beyond the lines run to the first established^ corner. If the affirmative of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kennedy v. Rose, 07-Ca-00006 (7-30-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008