Bonner v. Ware
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in .chancery from the county of Clark. The plaintiff is the possessor of land, held by regular train of conveyances, under a patent to John Hoffman. He brings this suit to quiet his title against the heirs of John Hockaday. The plaintiff’s right is incontestable, unless he is affected with notice of the interests of the defendant by the recitals in the patent under which he claims.
Read the full summary
This is a bill in .chancery from the county of Clark. The plaintiff is the possessor of land, held by regular train of conveyances, under a patent to John Hoffman. He brings this suit to quiet his title against the heirs of John Hockaday. The plaintiff’s right is incontestable, unless he is affected with notice of the interests of the defendant by the recitals in the patent under which he claims. The patent to Hoffman professes to be made in consideration of the military-services of John Hockaday. It grants the land “to John Hoffman, assignee of Joseph Hoffman and others, who, with the said…
1Opinion of the CourtLane, C. J.
That the owner of land is chargeable with notice of facts recited in the deed through which he traces his title, is a proposition true in all cases where the deeds are private conveyances. The application of this principle to recitals *in [469 patents is earnestly deprecated, from its consequences, particularly in the military district. It is urged, with much show of reason, that grants from public officers ought to be presumed to be properly issued by competent authority, upon proof that all requisites have been complied with, and the holder of land who traces his title to such official act…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brush v. WareSupreme Court of the United States · 1841
- Ware v. BrushU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1839