Legal Opinion

Hites v. Irvine's Administrator

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1862PublishedCited by 12 opinions

ERROR to the district court of Holmes county. Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.

The amended petition of tbe plaintiff, in bis original action; states, in substance, that, in 1846, certain described lands then owned by him, were sold at judicial sale, under an order made in a proceeding which bad been instituted against him by a mortgagee of the premises, for the •enforcement of his mortgage lien; and that defendant’s intestate, Irvine, purchased the premises, at said sale, for the sum of $333.34, which was only two thirds of their appraised value, under a verbal agreement with the plaintiff that he would hold the legal title as a security for the sum so advanced by him…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Freeman v. McAninchTexas Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Neil v. TolmanOregon Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Bomar v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  4. First National Bank v. GibsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Edelstein v. EdelsteinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928

7 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