Young v. Buckingham
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourned here for decision from the county of Muskingum. It was an action of trespass, qucere clausum fregit. Declaration, for breaking and entering plaintiff’s close. Plea, gen- • eral issue, with notice of the special matter set forth in the evidence offered by defendants as hereinfter stated.
Read the full summary
This cause was adjourned here for decision from the county of Muskingum. It was an action of trespass, qucere clausum fregit. Declaration, for breaking and entering plaintiff’s close. Plea, gen- • eral issue, with notice of the special matter set forth in the evidence offered by defendants as hereinfter stated. On the trial, the defendants admitted that before and on January 21, 1812, John McIntyre was seized in fee of the undivided? half part of the locus in quo, and continued seized until December 1, 1814, when he conveyed the same to one Noah Zane, who convoyed the same to the plaintiff on…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
*The subjects of evidence offered by the defendants profess to be a proceeding of the court of common pleas of Muskingum county, carrying into effect the provisions of a statute, entitled “ an act to authorize Moses Dillon and his associates to ■erect a toll-bridge over the Muskingum river,” 10 Ohio L. 51, by which the right to use the land in question, then owned by McIntyre, was given to Dillon, in the erection and occupancy of a toll-bridge. The form, consequently, which the objection must assume, is, either that no authority is shown to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Green v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by3 opinions
- Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Forest Park Properties, Inc. v. PineOhio Court of Appeals · 1966
- State v. KoderOhio Court of Appeals · 1982