Doe ex dem. Heighway v. Pendleton
Ohio Supreme Court
This is an Action op Ejectment, reserved from the County of Hamilton, on a motion for a new trial. The facts in the case will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. 1. Conveyance by Married Women.— Acknowledgment. The certificate must show that the married woman, upon a separate examination, acknowledged the facts necessary to the validity of the deed.
Read the full summary
This is an Action op Ejectment, reserved from the County of Hamilton, on a motion for a new trial. The facts in the case will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court. 1. Conveyance by Married Women.— Acknowledgment. The certificate must show that the married woman, upon a separate examination, acknowledged the facts necessary to the validity of the deed. When the certificate does not show that one of the grantors is a married woman, but merely states that “ Susan M, John H, and Eliza A. H,” severally acknowledged the indenture to be their voluntary act, for the uses, &c.,…
1Dissent
-Read;, J.
dissenting. I cannot concur in the opinion just pronounced.
The material facts appear to. me to.be briefly as follows: John .Mercer, on the 10th of June, 1796, mortgaged to Jesse A. Hunt, a fractional lot, 201, in Cincinnati, outlot'29, a fractional part of an outlot adjoining, and, .also, outlot- 28, to secure the payment .Of $720, with interest,, on or before the 10th. of September, then néxt. .
On the 10th of. February, 1798, John Mercer executed'another deed, to-the same parties, purporting'to be a mortgage-of fractional inlot .409, outlot 29, the fractional lot adjoining the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fowler v. ShearerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Lessee of Allen v. Orris ParishOhio Supreme Court · 1827
- Roads v. SymmesOhio Supreme Court · 1824
- Biggerstaff v. LovelandOhio Supreme Court · 1837