Gibson v. McNeely
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. This was an action brought under the code, by Hugh Gibson and wife, in the superior court of Cincinnati, to recover the possession of the undivided half of certain real estate in Cincinnati. The case was reserved, upon an agreed statement of facts, for the decision of that court in general term.
Read the full summary
Error to the superior court of Cincinnati. This was an action brought under the code, by Hugh Gibson and wife, in the superior court of Cincinnati, to recover the possession of the undivided half of certain real estate in Cincinnati. The case was reserved, upon an agreed statement of facts, for the decision of that court in general term. The controversy arose, mainly, from a clause in the will of Samuel Stitt, which refers to the property in dispute, and reads thus: “ Sixthly. I do, also, hereby give and devise to the children of my sister, Nancy, for and during the term of their natural…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
In regard to the effect of the former decree of the superior court of Cincinnati, which has been set up as a bar to the present action, we think it is not conclusive against the rights which the plaintiffs are now asserting. The subject matter brought directly in issue in the two cases is not *134the same. In the former suit the plaintiffs sought to enforce certain alleged trusts, in which they claimed to be beneficially interested, under the will of Samuel Stitt. But, in this action, they set up a legal title, and claim to recover the possession of real estate, and their right to such recovery,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lessee of Little v. LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1838