State v. Executors of Worthington
Ohio Supreme Court
The first and third counts of the plaintiff’s declaration set out,, in substance, that the decedent, on December 1, 1825, promised to-the plaintiffs that provided the canal should pass though the town of Chillicothe, he would pay or convey to the commissioners of the-fund, two thousand dollars in land, or in in-lots, of his addition to-the said town, or in money, at his option, the money to be paid in three years, and the land at any time within six months after the line of…
Read the full summary
The first and third counts of the plaintiff’s declaration set out,, in substance, that the decedent, on December 1, 1825, promised to-the plaintiffs that provided the canal should pass though the town of Chillicothe, he would pay or convey to the commissioners of the-fund, two thousand dollars in land, or in in-lots, of his addition to-the said town, or in money, at his option, the money to be paid in three years, and the land at any time within six months after the line of canal passing through said town should be put under contract. They proceed to aver that the line of canal passing…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
pronounced the opinion of the court:
The oyer is irregular. It is of an instrument of which no proferí is made, nor is it in the hands of the plaintiff, but of the demurrants; yet as the letters testamentary are carried upon the record, we have not declined considering the case as regularly disclosing the fact that the death of Worthington occurred in 1827.
In the cases in which we have heretofore decided upon these subscriptions (5 Ohio, 55; 4 Ohio, 142), we have held that the action is sustainable in the name of the state; that the contract is not without consideration nor void…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Yankton Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Fleming v. Connecticut General InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
- Pennsylvania Retreading Tire Co. v. GoldbergAppellate Court of Illinois · 1922
- Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. WilliamsDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1936