Case Name: BAILEY v. WHITMORE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-10-25
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 471
Docket Number: No. 197
Parties: BAILEY v. WHITMORE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 471–471

Head Matter:
No. 454
BAILEY v. WHITMORE
Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist., Knox County
No. 197.
Decided Oct. 25, 1923
45. ADVERSE POSSESSION — Periods of adverse possession of successors in title cannot be tacked when deed does not include land in question.
Attorneys — F. O. Levering a.nd Columbus Ewalt, for Bailey; L. C. Stillwell, for Whit-more; all of Mt. Vernon.

Opinion:
HOUCK, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract
The original action in the Knox .Common Pleas was brought by Cary Whitmore to enjoin Levada Bailey from using a certain strip of ground and a spring of water thereon. Whitmore had title to the strip containing the spring, but Bailey claimed an easement over the strip and to the use of the spring. Bailey had acquired land in the neighborhood by deed, which did not include the strip in question, and claimed the easement by right of prescription on the ground that he and his predecessors in title had open, continuous, adverse and peaceable possession of the easement for more than 21 years. In the Common Pleas, the injunction was granted as prayed for. Bailey prosecuted error. Held:
The injunction was properly granted. Where an occupant claims title under a deed which does not in fact include the land in dispute, his possession thereof cannot be tacked onto the adverse possession of his grantor, in order to make out a title by prescription. Judgment affirmed.