Tear v. Mathews
Ohio Supreme Court
In Chancery. The complainant alleges that he is the owner, and is in possession of a lot-of land, which the defendant claims to belong to another person, and has levied upon the property of another, and is about to sell as such, which will embarrass his title. He prays an injunction. The defendant admits the levy and the complainant’s possession, but claims that the conveyance to the complainant is fraudulent.
1Opinion of the Court
*BY THE COURT.
It appears that the purchase of this [372 property was made by William Tear, for John, and paid for with John’s money, but because the deed was drawn by mistake to William, the purchaser, to avoid the trouble of drawing a new deed, accepted it, and William afterwards conveyed to John, without *380pay. William being in debt, it is claimed the conveyance is fraudulent and void. The parties are ignorant foreigners. We see no evidence of fraud on the part of the complainant, or anything to warrant the defendant’s levy. The proceeding by the defendant is calculated to cloud and embarrass…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Springfield Milling Co. v. Lane CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1874
- Myers v. WarnerClackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clinton School District's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868