The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-03-15
LAW REPORT.
SUPERIOR COURT

DECISION troS A CLhusg IN BrLL.-Kate
j. Boyd 70. u. Sinton.a fudge 14bolson deliv-
cred an opinion in this cases.S The petition was
to recover an undivided interest on real estate,
on the ground that the inheritance descended
to the father of the plaintiff, or that she was
devisee, after a life estate, under the will Of
her grandfather Johu Boyd, who died in 1882,
seized (as the petition states) Of q perpetual
leHsehold estate The answer sets up a salo of
the property as a leasehold by the executors,
treating II as q personal estate. The plaintiff
denies IL was personal property, sets up chain
of title, and states that certain consequences
relied on by the defcnse we're operative only as
to certain portions Of the property, and didnot
vest her there.
The irst question presented was, whether
any such legal estate vested in the plaintiff, or
in her father, and, secondly, if il vested, had
been affected by any acts on the part Of those
under whom defendant claims. The first ques
tion leads to n construction of the will of John
Boyd. The Court might here refer to the case
of the Lessee of Boyd against Talbot, in which
it was held by the Supreme Court that the lease
hold did not descend to the heirs, but was dis
posed of by the will, which placed the title in
the executors. 1t was n clear inference then
from this opinion that there was only trust in
favor of the wife as to the proceeds, and that
during her life there could be no claim for the
possession of the leasehold premises under n
legal title, either by her or Of any of the chill
dren of John Boyd. ..Hf
From the provisions of the will the property
. was divided latter the death of the widow
among the children by the executors, and If
any part Of 1t could not properly be divided,
the executors were to sell and divide the pro-
ceeds. In view of this clause it was difficult
to maintain that one of the sons, Immediately
on the death of his mother, could enter on any
particular piece of the real estate; and IL the
son could not do this, his daughter after hiln
(the plaintiff) could not. The claim of the
plaintiff, if any, should be set up cestui qpe
trust. Under the present petition the finding
should be for defendant.
Darst &c Herschelroade rs Slevin and Cal
vert. This case was also disposed of by Judge
Gholson. An action for goods sold and deliv-
cred. The plaintiffs were wholesale dealers in
dry goods, in Dayton. The defendants car
ried on separate wholesale establishments, in
Cincinnati but were jointly interested in a re-
tail concern in Greenvlle, Dark County, the
stock of which being turned over to them for
a debt, they continued to carry on, and en-
gagged Workman and DAILY as their agents.
| The goods now sued for were furnished on the
| order of W. and d.
The defendants denied that they knew any
thing of this dealing on q credit; but no man
could take advantage of his ignorance when it
was his duty to have knowledge. 1t was
claimed that the plaintiffs might have known
| from the circumstance that the defendants
| themselves dealt in these articles, and could
have furnished them) that these agents could
not have authority to procure the credit. The
| Court did not think there was enough in this
| circumstance to induce the Court to hold that
these plaintiffs were bound to draw the infer
ence. If the agent pursued the ordinary mode
of transacting business, the principal must be
bound.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Mills & Hoadley for PLAINTIFF Jones II Bur-
nett, and Lincoln, Smith & Warnock for de.
fense.
| COMMON PLEAS