Legal Opinion

Longley v. Sewell

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

Decided October 15, 1895Published

1Opinion of the CourtHollister, J.

The plaintiff filed a petition in the probate court July 1, 1891, to sell real estate to pay debts. Sale was made. On July 3, 1893, he filed a supplemental petition, alleging that he had by oversight omitted from the petition three certain lots of land, and, alleging also that certain *377debts, of which he attached a schedule to the supplemental petition, were unpaid, prayed for a sale of the three lots. The debts were balances due the same creditors named in the schedule attached to the original petition.

The defendants, the Sewells, deny the right of the plaintiff' to sue, for the reason that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. JarvisOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Kilbourne v. FayOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Dalles Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Wasco Woolen Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Purvis v. KronerOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Oregonian Railway Co. v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1882

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API