Lessee of McMillan v. Robbins
Ohio Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, submitted to tbe court upon an agreed statement of -facts, in the county oí Hamilton. The following is the state of facts: Wm. McMillan devised the lands in-controversy to his wife, for life, without impeachment for waste — reversion to the lessors of the plaintiff. The wife, tenant for life, is still alive.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, submitted to tbe court upon an agreed statement of -facts, in the county oí Hamilton. The following is the state of facts: Wm. McMillan devised the lands in-controversy to his wife, for life, without impeachment for waste — reversion to the lessors of the plaintiff. The wife, tenant for life, is still alive. On February 29, 1825, the tenant for life made a lease to S. Z. Robbins for the same premises, during her life, upon certain trusts for minor children and for herself, and gave him possession-under the lease. ' Neither the tenant for life nor her lessee…
1Opinion of the Court
*Opinion of the court, by
Judge Hitchcock:
In the act of February 25, 1824, “ declaring what lands in the State of Ohio are subject to the payment of tax,” it was the intention of the legislature so to frame the law that all lands which could, consistent with public policy, be charged with a tax, should be brought into the list; and they intended to make it the interest of each individual, not only honestly and correctly to list his land, but also promptly and punctually to pay the tax. If, in any instance, heavy penalties were imposed, if forfeitures were threatened, it was with a view to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reel v. ReelOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Holcombe v. HolcombeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1878
- Clason v. Taylor, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1894
- Federal Land Bank v. NewsomMississippi Supreme Court · 1936