Rosenstihl v. Cherry
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
The paramount question in this case is whether the Flater decree of 1912 estops Rose Myer Rosenstihl, and those claiming with her, from now asserting any rights in the 18 inches between the original lot line as platted and the fence line as established by Clark in 1900, pursuant to the agreement set forth in his deed from Magdalena Myer. The Court of Appeals based its decision solely upon this point, holding that the plaintiffs in error were so estopped.
The proceeding above referred to was begun in 1912 by Henry Flater, predecessor in title of the defendant in error in this proceeding.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ashmun v. NicholsOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Wade v. McDougleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
- Perry v. Eagle Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Bellenger v. WhittSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Oberein v. WellsIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Grayson v. MuckleroySupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Coleman v. Penndel CompanyOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Lee v. JohnsonArizona Supreme Court · 1950
- Decastro v. StuartDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 2004
- Ford v. WestOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.