Lessee of Boal v. King
Ohio Supreme Court
This case was adjourned here for decision, from the county of Hamilton. It came up for decision on a motion for a new trial, made by the plaintiffs, on the following state of facts: The plaintiffs, to show title in themselves, produced in evidence a record of a judgment rendered in the general court, in Hamilton county, at March term, 1800, at the suit of Mills against Symmes; the original writ of ft. fa. et lev. fa. issued upon this judgment, returnable to March term, 1801,…
Read the full summary
This case was adjourned here for decision, from the county of Hamilton. It came up for decision on a motion for a new trial, made by the plaintiffs, on the following state of facts: The plaintiffs, to show title in themselves, produced in evidence a record of a judgment rendered in the general court, in Hamilton county, at March term, 1800, at the suit of Mills against Symmes; the original writ of ft. fa. et lev. fa. issued upon this judgment, returnable to March term, 1801, and returned levied upon the premises in question; a vendí., returnable to October term, 1801; and the sheriff’s deed,…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
No principle is more definitively settled, than that the process-of a court having a seal can only be evidenced by its seal, which is the appointed mode of showing its authenticity. Without it, a majority of the court hold such process void. The eases in 19 Johns. 170; 5 Cow. 550, and 5 Wend. 133, show the necessity of a seal to writs. In the two latter, a seal is allowed to be affixed by way of amendment, because necessary to the writ’s validity.
The practice in Pennsylvania is to hold the proceedings of th© *13•sheriff, upon executions for the sale…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lessee of Heister v. FortnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1809
- Wells v. FeeterNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Filkins v. BrockwayNew York Supreme Court · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lenarcie v. StateCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1907