Case Name: The Lessee of Edward Jackson and others v. Charles Williams
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1840-12
Citations: 10 Ohio 69
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Lessee of Edward Jackson and others v. Charles Williams.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 10
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
The Lessee of Edward Jackson and others v. Charles Williams.
One in possession, claiming title derived with warranty from an entry and survey not patented, has an estate that may he sold on execution.
A patent issued, after such sale, to the heirs of the original owner of the entry and survey, inures to the benefit of the purchaser under the execution.
A decree in chancery against such patentees, awarding the legal title to a purchaser from the judgment debtor after the sale on execution, is inoperative.
This is an action of ejectment from the county of Ross.
The premises in dispute are in-lot No. 213, in Cbillicothe, and the facts of the case are substantially these: In 1797, Massie conveyed the lot in dispute to Craig, it being covered by an entry and survey only; Craig conveyed to Niblack in 1805; Niblack to McMahan in 1806. The aforesaid deeds all contained covenants of warranty. After the sale to McMahan in 1806, the lot was sold, on an execution issued on a judgment against him, to John Hull, McMahan, at the date of the levy, being in possession. Hull afterward, in 1806, conveyed the lot to Crane, and then follow several intermediate conveyances to the lessors of the plaintiff.
70] *Massie died in 1811, and in 1814, a patent for the lot issued to his heirs.
In 1818, McMahan and wife conveyed to Collett and Evans, who filed their bill in chancery against the heirs of Massie in the court of common pleas of Ross county, and obtained a decree for the legal title in said lot, at the November term, 1819, and on the 6th day of December following, conveyed the same to the defendant, Williams.

Opinion:
Wood, J.
It will be observed that, at the date of the levy, and
when the sale was made by the sheriff of this lot to Hull,-no patent had been issued to Massie, and all that was transferred by that sale to the purchaser was such an estate as McMahan had in the premises. McMahan being in possession, at the date of the levy, had such an interest, by virtue of such possession alone, as was subject to levy and sale. He had also, in addition to his possessory title, a warranty deed from Niblack, who held a similar conveyance from Craig, and Craig from Massie, and when Massie's heirs, after his death, in 1814, obtained the patent for the lot, such patent inured to the benefit of the grantee of their ancestor, with covenants of warranty. Bond's Lessee v. Swearingen, 1 Ohio, 412. McMahan, therefore, in 1814, by the emanation of the patent, was invested with the legal title, and it inured, also, to the purchaser at sheriff's sale, and down to the plaintiff's lessor.
Douglas, for the plaintiff.
Leonard, for the defendant.
It seems to us to follow, that in 1818, McMahan and wife had no interest in the lot to convey to Collett and Evans ; that they acquired nothing by such conveyance, and consequently nothing by their decree against Massie's heirs, and therefore had no interest to convey to the defendant.
Judgment for the plaintiff.