Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Ohio St. 216

Kelley v. Hunter

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1843

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1843-12-15

This is a writ of Error from Carroll county. Kelley instituted proceedings under the act for forcible entry and detainer, to obtain possession of premises sold, in Hunter’s name, for taxes. Upon the trial he recovered upon the strength of the auditor’s deed.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1843-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1980

8 state decisions

40184318501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Birchard, Judge.

¶1This is a writ of error to the court of Common Pleas of Carroll county. Several errors are assigned, which it is not necessary to notice, inasmuch as the transcript shows that the proceeding is still pending in the court below. The case was in the court of Common Pleas by certiorari to two justices of the peace, whose judgment, in a proceeding under the statute, providing for actions of forcible detainer, were reversed, and the cause set down for hearing. The defendant moves to strike the ease from the docket, on the ground that there is no final judgment. Under the authority of Herf & Co. v. Shulze and others, 10 Ohio, 267; and Reed v. De Wolf, Wright, 418, this motion must prevail. Our statute has received a construction in these two cases which has been uniformly followed; and, were we in doubt as to the correctness of those decisions, we should hesitate to disturb them, and unsettle the law on a mere matter of practice.

¶2But were this case before us on a writ of error to a final judgment, the question sought to be made would be open to examination, and we apprehend there would be no difficulty in sustaining the position taken by the court below.

¶3*The magistrates’ proceedings were under the “act to regulate [220 the action for forcible entry and detainer,” and we do not believe that this statute makes adequate' provisions to enable purchasers at tax sales to oust the occupant claiming title adverse to, and senior to, the tax title.

¶4Cause stricken from the docket.

/12/ohiost/216 · .json · Public domain