Ludlow v. O'Neil
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati. This was an action by O’Neil against Ludlow, to compel the specific execution of a contract for the sale of a lot in the city of Cincinnati.
Read the full summary
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati. This was an action by O’Neil against Ludlow, to compel the specific execution of a contract for the sale of a lot in the city of Cincinnati. The contract bound the vendor, O’Neil, to make a “ perfect title, free, clear, and unincumbered.”. At the time fixed for the execution of the contract, Ludlow, the purchaser, declined to execute it, on the ground of an alleged defect iu the vendor’s title, namely, because one of the deeds in O’Neil’s chain of title was that of a married woman and her husband, Elizabeth…
1Opinion of the CourtWelch, C. J.
We agree with the court below, both in holding that the acknowledgment of the wife was in due- and legal form, and also in holding that this form of acknowledgment does not cast such a cloud upon the title, or render its legality so doubtful as to justify the defendant in refusing to execute the contract.
*183The statute in force at the time of executing the deed was that of February 22,1831 (S. & C. 458). It nowhere requires that the acknowledgment of a deed by husband and wife shall be made in the presence of each other, or be made at the same time or place. The first section requires all…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Sewall v. HaymakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Regan v. WalshOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1901
- Dengenhart v. CracraftOhio Supreme Court · 1881
- Moore v. OgdenOhio Supreme Court · 1880
- Rankin v. HannanOhio Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.