Linton v. Laycock
Ohio Supreme Court
Reserved in the District Court of Brown county. The suit was brought to determine the plaintiff’s right to an undivided seventh part of 212 acres of laud, and to obtain partition and an account for rents. The plaintiff' claims the land as devisee under the will of his grandfather, Joseph Linton; and the question is, whether the father of the plaintiff, who was the son of the testator, or tbe plaintiff, was tbe devisee of tbe land.
Read the full summary
Reserved in the District Court of Brown county. The suit was brought to determine the plaintiff’s right to an undivided seventh part of 212 acres of laud, and to obtain partition and an account for rents. The plaintiff' claims the land as devisee under the will of his grandfather, Joseph Linton; and the question is, whether the father of the plaintiff, who was the son of the testator, or tbe plaintiff, was tbe devisee of tbe land. Tbe will is as follows : “ I give and devise to my beloved wife tbe farm on which we now reside, situated in Brown county, and State of Ohio, containing 212 acres;…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
Two questions are presented for our determination: First. Was the case appealable? If so — Second. Was the plaintiff a devisee under the will?
1. The statute under which the appeal was taken provides that “ civil actions,” in which, neither party has the right to demand a trial by jury, may be appealed. A proceeding under the special act to provide for the partition of real estate, not being a civil action, is not appealable. Barger v. Cochran, 15 Ohio St. 460.
Rut this case is not a proceeding under that act. Its provisions have not been pursued, nor are they adequate for the object sought to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tayloe v. MosherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Bredell v. CollierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Roome v. . PhillipsNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Hancock v. Titus & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1860
- Watkins v. QuarlesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1861