Legal Opinion

Embleton v. McMechen

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1924No. 18028PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

Besides the legal question involved in this controversy, the Court of Appeals determined two issues of fact: First, that the defendant Slater had purchased four shares of stock held by one of the original stockholders; and, second, that the two defendants named had violated the terms of the agreement, and thereby forfeited a one-half interest in the premises to plaintiffs, and awarded partition accordingly.

It is claimed by plaintiffs in error that under the deed to them from the Eureka Coal Company, dated June, 1904, they obtained the fee-simple title to the premises and that the forfeiture…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Love v. BlauwSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
  2. Ashcroft v. Eastern RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
  3. Smith v. RunnelsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
  4. Mandle v. GharingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  5. Seiders v. GilesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. ThonenOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  2. Maumee Valley Electric Co. v. City of ToledoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
  3. Bosky Group, L.L.C. v. Columbus & Ohio River RR. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. Burk v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Ewing v. McClanahanOhio Court of Appeals · 1986

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API