Case Name: Lessee of Stuart and others v. O. Parish
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-12
Citations: 6 Ohio 476
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lessee of Stuart and others v. O. Parish.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 6
Pages: 484–484

Head Matter:
Lessee of Stuart and others v. O. Parish.
Land sold for taxes before patent issues, the legal title of the patentee not affected by such sale.
This case was adjourned from the county of Sandusky.
Coffinberry and Deckerson, for plaintiff.
Parish and Spink, for defendant. *

Opinion:
Judge Lane
stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court :
The facts of the case are agreed.
In 1817, Josephus B. Stuart became the purchaser from the 477] *United States of tract No. 5, in the " Sandusky Reserve," under the system of purchases from the United States which then prevailed, upon which he made the first payment.
In 1821, the purchase money being unpaid, he took the benefit of the laws then enacted, in an eight year's credit on the land.
In 1826 it was entered on the list for taxation, and the taxes of 1826-37 being unpaid, the land was sold for taxes to Strain, who took possession, and whose title is held by defendant.
In 1830 Stuart completed the payment of the land, and received patent from government, by which he claims title.
Counsel have discussed the question, whether the land was liable to taxation before patent issued, and whether the tax was properly levied. We entertain the belief that these questions need not be decided. The sale in 1827 transferred, at best, the title of .'Stuart which he then held, and his title then was equitable only. His subsequent acquisition of the legal title did not inure to the benefit of that purchaser, for the sale of his interest by the public officer, raised no estoppel against him as if he had transferred with warranty. Admitting, then, for present purposes, the legality of the sale, and that Stuart's interest passed by it, those rights being merely equitable, offer no defense to an action of ejectment by the holder of the legal title.