Smith v. Pratt
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a writ of error to the common pleas, reserved from the county ot Medina. This record has once been before this court, and the facts are fully set forth in the report of the case of Smith v. Barber et al., 7 Ohio, 118, pt. 2. It was there holden not to be an error in law to set out to a petitioner in partition his whole interest in one of two tracts, of which partition is sought, unless it appear from the record that the tracts are owned by different co-tenants.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of error to the common pleas, reserved from the county ot Medina. This record has once been before this court, and the facts are fully set forth in the report of the case of Smith v. Barber et al., 7 Ohio, 118, pt. 2. It was there holden not to be an error in law to set out to a petitioner in partition his whole interest in one of two tracts, of which partition is sought, unless it appear from the record that the tracts are owned by different co-tenants. The present plaintiff in error, one of the heirs of Obed Smith, deceased, but not a party to the former writ of error, after…
1Opinion of the CourtLane, C. J.
The defendants object to any examination of these proceedings, because they are pending before us by error, and not by certiorari. The distinction between the respective offices of these writs is well marked in England and in some of the states, but in our practice the difference in the forms of these writs, the mode of allowance, the process, the assignment of errors, and the judgment, is so slight, that it has almost disappeared; and, although no case is known, or believed to exist, where judgments proper have been reviewed by certiorari, or whore the proceedings of other public bodies,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williams v. Peyton's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Edgar v. DodgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808