Turney v. Yeoman
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in the county of Fayette. The bill avers title to. 333 acres, the undivided third part of survey No. 988, pátented to Hector McNeil and Joseph and ^Robert Watkins, by virtue of a sale and deed from the auditor of Fayette courfty, under the act of 1831, and the acts ( supplementary thereto ; that Yeoman and others claim said land; that Yeoman claims under a conveyance from Lyne Starling, and prays that their titles may bo discovered and…
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in the county of Fayette. The bill avers title to. 333 acres, the undivided third part of survey No. 988, pátented to Hector McNeil and Joseph and ^Robert Watkins, by virtue of a sale and deed from the auditor of Fayette courfty, under the act of 1831, and the acts ( supplementary thereto ; that Yeoman and others claim said land; that Yeoman claims under a conveyance from Lyne Starling, and prays that their titles may bo discovered and litigated, and prays partition and general relief. Yeoman has answered, setting up his title under Starling; that…
1Opinion of the CourtBirchard, J.
The objection to the introduction of this deed presents a new and interesting question. One that merited all the attention it has received from counsel, and all that we have been able to devote to it. It requires, at our hands, a construction of portions of the act of March 14, 1831 (Swan, 927), and of the act of January 21, 1833. 31 Stat. 20.
Section 1 of the act of 1831 provides for the sale of lands which had become forfeited to the state, for the non-payment of taxes prior to January 1, 1831, and all lands that might thereafter become forfeited; declaring that they “ shall be sold and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Consumers' Brewing Co. v. HardwayOhio Court of Appeals · 1913
- Gutridge v. VanattaOhio Supreme Court · 1875