Holden v. Circleville Light & Power Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio; John E. Sater, Judge. .Action at law by Martha Bierce Holden against the Circleville Light & Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
KNAPPEN, Circuit Judge.
This action was brought to recover possession of a six-ninths interest in certain premises in Circleville, Ohio, of which plaintiff claimed to be the owner in fee. The case was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered for defendant. The testimony has not been sent up. From the findings of fact made by the trial judge we condense the following as a sufficient statement for present purposes:
Isaac Darst died testate in the year 1844, leaving a widow, and without issue, except one daughter, who was then married. His will, which was duly probated, after providing for the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Scott v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Colton v. ColtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lovewell v. SchoolfieldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926
- Hogan v. TaylorSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1940
- Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926
- Mt. Plymouth Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932