Carter v. Longworth
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a suit in chancery, reserved for .decision by the Supreme Court in Hamilton county. The bill was filed in the court of common pleas, and set forth that the plaintiff, some time in 1816, purchased of one William Stewart, a certain lot of ground in Cincinnati, for the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, and received from Stewart a deed of general warranty.
Read the full summary
This was a suit in chancery, reserved for .decision by the Supreme Court in Hamilton county. The bill was filed in the court of common pleas, and set forth that the plaintiff, some time in 1816, purchased of one William Stewart, a certain lot of ground in Cincinnati, for the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, and received from Stewart a deed of general warranty. At the time of the purchase, Stewart exhibited to the plaintiff a deed for the lot, from Longworth to himself, and assured the plaintiff that the purchase money was fully paid to Longworth. At this time the plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
If the defendants are bound to answer any part of the bill, the demurrer, being entire to the whole bill, must be overruled. A demurrer, bad in part, is bad in toto. 1 Ves. 248; 1 Atk. 450; 2 Atk. 44; Mad. Ch. 226; 1 Johns. Ch. 51; 5 Johns. Ch. 186. (a)
*The main question intended to be presented by the demurrer, whether a scire facias binds subsequent incumbrances, need not be determined. The bill charges “ a fraudulent concealment of title, while the complainant was making improvement.” A demurrer to such charge of fraud is bad. In the case of Higingbothem v. Burnet, 5 Johns.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lansing v. EddyNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
- Higinbotham v. BurnetNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
3Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Columbus Street Railway & Light Co. v. DeupreeIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
- Reichenbach v. RuddachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- State, Ex Rel. Mack v. O'ConnorOhio Court of Appeals · 1949