Lessee of Holt's Heirs v. Hemphill's Heirs
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourned for decision here by the Supreme Court of Ross county. It was elaborately argued by Leonard, for the plaintiff, and Scott'and Sills, for the defendants. The case being fully stated, and the arguments of counsel and authorities cited noticed in the opinion of the court, it is conceived unnecessary to swell the report with anything more than that opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court, by
Judge Burnet:
The plaintiff claims under a patent regularly granted by the United States, which covers the land in dispute. He must therefore recover, unless the defendants can show a ^better title in themselves, or that the plaintiff’s right is barred by some other cause.
*219The facts oí this case are concisely these: In August, 1787, Thomas Boyer entered the land in controversy. In August, 1789, he withdrew two hundred acres of it. In November, 1793, the residue of his entry was surveyed: the word error, being written on the margin of *the record of the survey. On March…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Taylor's Lessee v. MyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
3Cited by3 opinions
- Games v. Stiles Ex Dem. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- Lyon v. HuntSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Railway Co. v. CroninOhio Supreme Court · 1882