Case Name: Mayhugh v. Rosenthal
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1871-10
Citations: 1 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 492
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mayhugh v. Rosenthal.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Cincinnati Superior court reporter
Volume: 1
Pages: 492–509

Head Matter:
Mayhugh v. Rosenthal.
Geo. W. Mayhugh owned a house and lot in Cincinnati, January 1, 1856, when he left his wife and children in Cincinnati, and departed from the State of Ohio, and was not heard of from February 15, 1859, to October 15, 1868, when he returned home. On the 8th day of February, 1867, when he had been absent and unheard of for eight years, his wife and children conveyed the house and lot in Cincinnati in exchange for a farm in the country.
Held, in a suit by Mayhugh to recover the house and lot, that although his absence, unheard from, for more than seven years was a ground for presuming his death, yet that presumption was only prima facie evidence of his death, and was rebutted by his return, and that the deed of his wife and children was void.
Upon the presumption arising from the seven years’ absence, unheard of, the court of probate might have granted letters of administration of Mayhugli's estate and ordered a sale of his real property as of a deceased person, but his title could not be affected without legal proceedings.
The finding, on which the judgment of the court below was founded, was as follows, viz:
1. That Geo. "W. Mayhugh, the plaintiff in case No. 24,037, was the owner in fee simple of the premises in question at the date of his departure from the State of Ohio, prior to January 1, 1856, and at the date of the reception of "the last information from him, prior to his return therefrom, which last information was received at a date not later than February 15,1859; that said. Geo. "W". Mayhugh never made any conveyance of said premises subsequent thereto.
2. That the defendants in No. 24,011, Clarissa A. Mayhugh, Benj. T. Mayhugh, and Chas. Mayhugh, on or about the 8th February, 1867, united in a deed of conveyance of said property to Jno. C. Robinson, plaintiff. The deed drafted by counsel, who represented both parties, described them as the owners thereof, the said Clarissa A. May-hew as the widow, and said Benjamin and Charles as the heirs at law of said Geo. W. Mayhugh; said Clarissa A. Mayhugh stated to the plaintiff, Robinson, that her said husband had been absent from the State of Ohio more than ten years and unheard of more than seven years, and that he was dead and she believed1 him to bo dead. Relying upon, these statements, said Robinson purchased the property from said Clarissa, Benjamin, and Charles, taking a deed with covenants of seizin and general warranty.
1 3. Said Robinson took said property at the estimated value of $7,000, and paid therefor as follows: Conveyance to said Clarissa A. Mayhugh, at the request of said Benja-. men and Charles, the premises described in the petition, situated in Colerain township, subject to a mortgage'of $4,600, and paying to her in cash $1,600, said Clarissa agreeing to pay said mortgage of $4,600. She bought personal property from Robinson and paid $90 out of the $1,600.
4. Said Robinson expended $460 in necessary and lasting improvements upon said Richmond street property, and sold the same to S. Rosenthal for $6,400, who was put into possession on or about the-day of-, 1867, and has been in possession ever since.
5. Said Richmond street premises were worth a rental of $450 per annum.
6. On or about October 15, 1868, Geo. "W. Mayhugh returned to Ohio, and subsequently instituted suit 24,087. He was ignorant of the sale until his return.
7. Said Geo. W. Mayhugh left no other property in the hands of his wife than the premises in question, and made no other provision for her support or that of his children, who were, at the time of his departure, aged respectively ten and twelve, excepting some remittances, the last of which was in a letter dated at Maysville, January 15, 1859, and postmarked February 12, 1859.
Since the return of said Mayhugh he has not lived or cohabited with his wife, nor visited her. He has done or suffered no act ratifying the sale of the lot on Richmond street, nor taken the possession of said property in Colerain township, nor done or suffered any act ratifying the possession of his wife and children of said property. No part of the proceeds of the sale of the Richmond street property has been received by him. Upon this agreed statement of facts, the court at Special Term rendered a judgment for defendant and dismissed the petition, to reverse which judgment this petition in error was filed.
C. D. Coffin, for Mayhugh.
McGuffey, Morrill & Strunk, for Rosenthal.
Matthews, Ramsey & Matthews, for Robinson.

Opinion:
Taft, J.
The main question to be considered on this finding is, whether Geo. W. Mayhugh, by seven years' absence unheard of, lost the control of his real estate in Cincinnati, so that his wife and children could sell and transfer it without the interposition of a court. Such an absence was prima facie evidence of his death. Greenleaf's Ev., secs. 83, 41. Acting upon that evidence, the wife and children . undertook to convey the title of his real estate; and relying upon that evidence, Robinson took their deed, and paid a consideration for it by the transfer to them of a farm. If the children and the wife had applied to the probate court for letters of administration they would have been granted, and an order of sale made on the application of the administrator would have been valid by the judgment of the court, and would probably have been conclusive as to the title conveyed. Newman v. Jenkins, 10 Pick. 515, 516.
But, without any action of the court, it seems to a majority of the court that the title remained in Mr. Mayhugh, and could not be taken or conveyed away from him by his wife or his children. The prima facie evidence of his death disappeared on his return alive to his home in Cincinnati. i The presumption of death, arising from seven years' absence unheard of, is not absolute but prima facie only. We find nothing in the text books or in*the reports to sustain a-stronger presumption than that.
Our attention has been called to the statement of a case which has recently arisen in Massachusetts, contained in an opinion of Mr. H. N. Sheldon, published in the October number of the American Law Register, 609, where, after an absence of the husband, unheard of, for more than seven years, the wife married again and lived with the second husband until he died. The heirs of the second husband and the widow by mutual agreement settled the estate, assigning to her a portion of the property, and executing deeds mutually to each other. After all this the first husband returned. The heirs of the second husband sought to set aside the arrangement they had made with the widow, on the ground that she was not the legal wife of the second husband.
Mr. Sheldon regards the arrangement as a fair compromise, and as such,to be upheld. Nor does he think that the court would consider the validity of the marriage after the decease of the parties to it. This principle has been acted upon in several cases. Campbell v. Corley, 21 L. J. Mat. Cas. 60; Crapsey v. McKinney, 30 Barb. 47; White v. Lowe, 1 Redf. Sur. R. 376, and several other cases to the same effect. Ve think that the opinion of Mr. Sheldon, as expressed in the article referred to, would be found to be correct if it should come to a judicial decision. But it would not be an authority in this case, in which both husband and wife were living, and in which there is not the feature of a compromise of doubtful rights.
We can find no principle or precedent on which to sustain the validity of the sale and transfer of the real propperty of Mayhugh in his lifetime, without his consent or the interposition of a court.
The plaintiff, Mayhugh, is entitled to a judgment for the property, subject., however, to the right of Robinson, or the defendant, Rosenthal, to the benefit of the occupying claimants' law, in regard to the permanent improvements which have been put upon the premises by Robinson or Rosenthal.
Robinson, who purchased the property, and paid the consideration, partly in money and partly by the conveyance of a farm, has .brought a suit against the sons and wife of Mayhugh, the plaintiff", and against Mayhugh, himself, for relief in respect to the consideration paid by him for the property in question.
As the last-mentioned case is not before us, we can not now decide what relief can be-granted upon his petition.
The pendency of that case, howevqr, furnishes no reason why the plaintiff in the present case should not recover his property. On the contrary, the final judgment in this case will furnish a basis of adjudication in that.
Judgment will be entered, in favor of the plaintiff as already indicated.