Doe v. Executors of Dugan
Ohio Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, reserved in the county of Hamilton. The facts were presented -in an agreed case. The plaintiffs seek to recover an undivided half of lot 3STo. 92, in Cincinnati. In 1805, William Woodward was the proprietor, in his own right, of three undivided eighths of the lot, together with an out-lot, and held one undivided eighth in right of his wife.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, reserved in the county of Hamilton. The facts were presented -in an agreed case. The plaintiffs seek to recover an undivided half of lot 3STo. 92, in Cincinnati. In 1805, William Woodward was the proprietor, in his own right, of three undivided eighths of the lot, together with an out-lot, and held one undivided eighth in right of his wife. The remaining four-eighths were respectively owned by Seth Cutter, Abigail Pillsbury (wife of Silas Pillsbury), Mary Cutter, and Hephzibah Poster (wife of Samuel Poster). In August term of the'common pleas of Hamilton…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendants hold the estate of Samuel Foster. If he acquired a fee, by the proceedings in partition, it has passed to the defendants; but if his estate, in the half lot, or in any part of it, was for life only, and at his death passed to the heirs of his wife, the plaintiffs may recover it in this suit.
The mistake of the name of Mrs. Pillsbury, in the petition, and the omission to name her husband, are of no moment in this case. If she should interpose her claim to her original share, other *106questions may arise. But if these litigants have any…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Logan v. WMC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Gray)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2009
- Glemser v. Glemser, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1897
- Heller v. HawleyCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1905
- State ex rel. Ohio General Assembly v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Ward's Heirs v. McIntoshOhio Supreme Court · 1861