Crooks v. Crooks
Ohio Supreme Court
■ Error to the District Court of Mahoning county. The original action was brought by plaintiffs in error, as heirs at law of James Crooks, Sr., against the defendant in ■error to recover the possession of twenty-five acres of land.
Read the full summary
■ Error to the District Court of Mahoning county. The original action was brought by plaintiffs in error, as heirs at law of James Crooks, Sr., against the defendant in ■error to recover the possession of twenty-five acres of land. They also prayed for the sale of the land as upon partition •among themselves, subject to the dower estate of the defendant, and that a certain deed from James Crooks, Sr., to the defendant, under which she claims title, should be ■declared void and of no effect. The defendant, by way of answer and cross-petition, set up the facts hereinafter stated as the findings…
1Opinion of the CourtMoIlvaine, J.
In respect to contracts between husband' and wife, the doctrine of the common law, that the legal-existence of the wife is merged in that of the husband,. *615operates, with all its consequences, in this state, notwithstanding our statutes, which, to some extent, enlarges the capacity and rights of married women. Wherefore, a deed for the conveyance of land executed by a husband to his wife, without the intervention of a trustee, is void at law; nor can a court of equity regard it as effectual to transfer the legal title. And further, it may be said, that where such deed is intended as a pure…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hathaway v. . PayneNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Hatch v. HatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Church v. GilmanNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Hunt v. . JohnsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Sims v. RicketsIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.