Case Name: HULING et v. NEAL et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-07-24
Citations: 7 Ohio Law Abs. 601
Docket Number: 
Parties: HULING et v NEAL et
Judges: Before Judges Hughes, Justice and Crow.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 7
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
HULING et v NEAL et
Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Logan Co
Decided July 24, 1929
Messrs. W. Clay Huston, Bellefontaine, and Meade C. Robinson, Marysville, for Huling et.
Messrs. John S. Huston, Degraff, and H. H. Newell, Toledo, for Neal et.

Opinion:
HUGHES, J.
Both deeds above referred to, conveying the half acre and the one acre to the school board for school purposes, reserved in the grantors a reversionary interest which at all times was a vested interest, subject to be enjoyed upon the abandonment of the school property for school purposes. When Robert Moore conveyed this entire property to Mary A. Huling, he divested himself of that right and Mary Ann Huling became vested with it. And wh£p. Mary Ann Huling died devising this property, including this interest, to her daughter Etta Electa Worley, she passed that interest on to her daughter, who in turn by deed to William S. Neal and Mary C. Neál, divested herself of that interest and passed it on to the Neals. When the school board abandoned this property, therefore it reverted to William S. Neal and Mary C. Neal, and_the plaintiffs' petition must therefore be dismissed. The reasoning herein adopted is supported, we think by the reasoning in Jeffers v. Lampson, 10 OS. 101, at 106.
Before Judges Hughes, Justice and Crow.