¶1It appears that the purchase of this property, was made by William Tear, for John, and paid for with John's money, but because the deed was drawn by mistake to William, the purchaser, to avoid the trouble of drawing a new deed, accepted it, and William afterwards conveyed to John, without pay. William' being in debt, it is claimed the conveyance is fraudulent and void. The parties are ignorant foreigners. We see no evidence of fraud on the part of the complainant, or any thipg to warrant the defendant’s levy. The proceeding by the defendant is calculated to cloud and embarrass the title of the complainant, and may be restrained upon the authority of several decisions, as well as enjoined; 3 O. R. 216; 5 O. R. 267. We find the land the property of the complainant, and perpetually enjoin the defendant from proceeding against it upon his levy.
1 Ohio Ch. 371
Tear v. Mathews
Decided August 15, 1833
Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1833-08-15
In Chancery. The complainant alleges that he is the owner, and is in possession of a lot of land, which the defendant claims to belong to another person, and has levied upon the property of another, and is about to sell as such, which will embarrass his title. - He prays an injunction. The defendant admits the levy and the complainant’s possession, hut claims that the conveyance to the complainant is fraudulent.
Decided 1833-08-15