Legal Opinion

Kimball v. Anderson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1932No. 23267PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.

This case was disposed of in the Court of Appeals on the theory that the adverse possession by the plaintiffs could only be claimed from the date of the conveyance by Smith of lot 29. A contrary judgment would have been entered in the Court of Appeals if the adverse possession had continued for twenty-one years after 1918, that being the date of the conveyance by Smith of lot 29. The Court of Appeals proceeded upon the principle declared by certain text-writers, supported by numerous authorities, that the occupation of a grantor after conveyance is presumed to be under and in subordination to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sherman v. . KaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Harn v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Abbett v. PageSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  4. Doolittle v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  5. Milnes v. VanGilderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Vanasdal v. BrinkerOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Cadwallader v. ScovannerOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Coleman v. Penndel CompanyOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Monroe Bowling Lanes v. Woodsfield Livestock SalesOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Franklin v. Massillon Homes II, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API