Haynes v. Baker
Ohio Supreme Court
Bill of review. Reserved in Muskingum county. The original controversey between these parties arose upon the following state of facts : In 1839, Baker, being the owner of a certain farm in Muskingum county, sold it, by contract in writing, to Haynes, reserving to himself about five acres in the south-east corner of the farm. In this contract, Baker bound himself to convey the farm to Haynes, who, on his part, agreed to re-convey to Baker the “ piece reserved.”
Read the full summary
Bill of review. Reserved in Muskingum county. The original controversey between these parties arose upon the following state of facts : In 1839, Baker, being the owner of a certain farm in Muskingum county, sold it, by contract in writing, to Haynes, reserving to himself about five acres in the south-east corner of the farm. In this contract, Baker bound himself to convey the farm to Haynes, who, on his part, agreed to re-convey to Baker the “ piece reserved.” Baker conveyed the farm according to agreement, but Haynes, as Baker claimed, failed to execute and deliver a deed conveying to him…
1Opinion of the CourtJ. R. Swan, J.
Possession of land is an estate therein which may ripen into the right of possession and the right of property. If a judgment debtor is in possession of land, it may be levied upon and sold ; for he has an estate recognized by the common law, and to a considerable extent protected by the occupying claimant law. Whether, when such possession of a judgment debtor is united with an equitable estate, a sale on execution will carry with it such equitable estate, has never yet been expressly decided by the Supreme Court of this State. But if the judgment debtor has no estate whatever in lands but…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Roads v. SymmesOhio Supreme Court · 1824
- Douglass v. HustonOhio Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by3 opinions
- State, Ex Rel. Baldine v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals · 1964
- Gorrell v. KelseyOhio Supreme Court · 1883
- Stevens v. McCoyOhio Supreme Court · 1899