Bohart v. Atkinson
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a case in chancery, reserved in the county of Carroll. The bill states, in substance: That Peter Bohart died intestate, seized of the northwest .quarter of section 31, township 14, rang® 5, in Carroll county, except about thirty acres, on which the town of Centerville was located. That, in April, 1836, a petition for partition was filed in Columbiana common pleas; these complainants being then minors.
Read the full summary
This is a case in chancery, reserved in the county of Carroll. The bill states, in substance: That Peter Bohart died intestate, seized of the northwest .quarter of section 31, township 14, rang® 5, in Carroll county, except about thirty acres, on which the town of Centerville was located. That, in April, 1836, a petition for partition was filed in Columbiana common pleas; these complainants being then minors. That the defendant combined with Morris, the sheriff of Columbiana, to be appointed appraiser. That the land in question was appraised at $1,250; far below its value. That Atkinson…
1Opinion of the CourtBirchard, J.
Several questions of interest arise in this ease, which will be separately considered. The position mainly relied on by complainant’s counsel is, that the respondent could not legally purchase the premises in controversy after having acted as an appraiser,^under the sheriff, in executing the writ of partition ; and that, having so purchased, he should be charged and *237held to an account as trustee. To sustain this point, the case of Armstrong v. Huston’s Heirs, 8 Ohio, 552, together with other’ authorities, are cited. That case presented the single question, whether an appraiser of land, at an…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Bowyer v. KnappWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- State v. MinorOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Bowler v. VannoyNevada Supreme Court · 1950
- Reid, Murdock & Co. v. MercurioMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Krabill v. GibbsOhio Supreme Court · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.