Thompson v. Ackerman
Ohio Circuit Courts
Heard on Error. The rule that a mere possibility of reverter is not a subject of grant or conveyance has no application to this case. When Satterthwait conveyed to Thompson he did not convey an estate to commence in future, i. e., at the expiration of the ten year term of Ackeiman, but he conveyed a present vested estate.
Read the full summary
Heard on Error. The rule that a mere possibility of reverter is not a subject of grant or conveyance has no application to this case. When Satterthwait conveyed to Thompson he did not convey an estate to commence in future, i. e., at the expiration of the ten year term of Ackeiman, but he conveyed a present vested estate. By that conveyance the seisin, ownership, vested in Thompson, subject to an estate for years in Ackerman, liable to be determined by unlawful acts of the latter. The seizin being in Thompson, if Ackerman’s right of possession lapsed by his act, then Thompson being seized of…
1Opinion of the CourtMooney, J.
The original action was in forcible entry and detainer brought in the court of Miner A. Atmur, a justice of the peace of this county. In that action Joseph C. Thompson, as owner of certain premises, sought to recover the possession because, as he alleged, the lease under which Chas. I/. Ackerman occupied the same had become forfeited by reason of the use thereof by said Ackerman for gaming purposes. The defendant, Ackerman, in thatt action filed what is called his answer, and therein denied that the premises were used for gaming purposes, and averred that in 1894 the premises in question were…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bedford v. . TerhuneNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Damon v. CarrolMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Cross v. UpsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Mariner v. CrockerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Heely v. BarnesNew York Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- Egli v. HuttonOregon Supreme Court · 1931