Legal Opinion

Dewit v. Osburn

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1832Published

This is an ejectment. The facts were agreed on by the parties, and it was submitted to the court on the last circuit in Fayette county, and reserved here for decision. The facts are, that Peter Harnes, on February 25, 1830, in the court of common pleas for the county of Fayette, entered into a recognizance in one hundred dollars, for the appeai’ance of Adam Harnes to answer to an indietment pending against him in that court.

Read the full summary

This is an ejectment. The facts were agreed on by the parties, and it was submitted to the court on the last circuit in Fayette county, and reserved here for decision. The facts are, that Peter Harnes, on February 25, 1830, in the court of common pleas for the county of Fayette, entered into a recognizance in one hundred dollars, for the appeai’ance of Adam Harnes to answer to an indietment pending against him in that court. On May 20, 1830, the recognizance was forfeited; a sci. fa. was afterward issued on the recognizance against Peter Harnes from that court, and a judgment on it there…

1Opinion of the Court

Judge Collet

delivered the opinion of the court:

Osburn is a bona fide purchaser of the premises, for valuable consideration, without notice, and before the judgment. The only question to be decided is, whether the recognizance was a lien on the lands in the-hands of such a purchaser.

*TJnder the feudal system, lands could not be aliened by the holder, without the' consent of the lord, for thereby an enemy of the lord, or a person unable to serve him in his wars, might be put in possession of the land; neither was it liable for the debts-of the holder, nor could he make it liable, unless for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Campbell v. Richardson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1785

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

Powered by the Exa API