Allen v. McCoy
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a petition in chancery for dower, which was heard upon the following state of facts : In the year 1803, the defendant intermarried with Geo. W. Allen, who was then seized in fee of seven half sections of land* each containing 320 acres, all situate in the refugee military lands, and lying in the counties of Franklin,'Fairfield, and Licking, in the State of Ohio, as those counties were bounded when the petition was filed. In the year 1805, Geo.
Read the full summary
This was a petition in chancery for dower, which was heard upon the following state of facts : In the year 1803, the defendant intermarried with Geo. W. Allen, who was then seized in fee of seven half sections of land* each containing 320 acres, all situate in the refugee military lands, and lying in the counties of Franklin,'Fairfield, and Licking, in the State of Ohio, as those counties were bounded when the petition was filed. In the year 1805, Geo. W. Allen mortgaged these lands, but his wife did not join in the mortgage. Allen died in 1806. In the year 1809, the lands were sold by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Wood
delivered the opinion of the court:
It is made a question for the defense, whether the proper party defendants are before the court. The objection lies at the foundation of the suit, and for that reason should be first examined and disposed of. If it is well taken, we can not proceed to a decree. Other parties must be brought before us, and we ought to hear them before we decide a principle affecting their rights. This is the more necessary, because we are engaged in re-examining a doctrine that has been settled in this court, and promulgaged as a rule of property. In such a case we…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Reams v. Henney, Admr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1950