Dudley v. Little
Ohio Supreme Court
This case was heard in Delaware county, before Judges Burnet and Sherman, in 1826. The bill stated that the complainants, as heirs at law of Israel Ludlow, were the proprietors of a tract of land situated in the-county of Delaware, on which the taxes had not been paid; that at a sale of land for taxes, three hundred and seventy acres of the land in question, worth three dollars per acre, had been sold by the collector, and purchased by the defendant for thirty-three dollars…
Read the full summary
This case was heard in Delaware county, before Judges Burnet and Sherman, in 1826. The bill stated that the complainants, as heirs at law of Israel Ludlow, were the proprietors of a tract of land situated in the-county of Delaware, on which the taxes had not been paid; that at a sale of land for taxes, three hundred and seventy acres of the land in question, worth three dollars per acre, had been sold by the collector, and purchased by the defendant for thirty-three dollars and seventy-three cents. The bill charges that a fraudulent combination had been formed by the defendant and sundry…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
A partnership or contract formed for the purchase of land at sale for taxes, is against the policy of the law; and if such contract or partnership be entered into for the express purpose of making such purchases, it is a fraud on the owner of the property,, and the purchaser can not obtain an available title.
Such combinations have, necessarily, a direct tendency to prevent competition, which it is the duty-of the legislature and the-policy of the law to encourage. Over a sale of this description, the owner has no control — he can not refuse a bid, or adjourn the-sale, or fix a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Railway Co. v. MarpleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1911
- McDannald v. WilmothWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1918