Anonymous
Published: 2013-09
Total Pages: 356
Get eBook
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1901 edition. Excerpt: ...is never carried by construction beyond the clear expression of the statute creating it. Sherman in Lessee of Bond v. Swearingen, 1 Ohio, 403. "It is elementary that forfeitures are not favored and are adjudged even in courts of law upon strict right. Covenants of lorfeiture are to be construed strictly and most strongly against the parties claiming a forfeiture. Wright, 57. Sutlif, C. J'., Smith v. Whitbeck, 13 Ohio St., 477, says: "He who asserts for himself title by forfeiture must prove it by establishing every fact and showing every circumstance and condition requisite to constitute a forfeiture without the benefit of any presumptions in his favor." " Lane, C. 1., Lessee of Boyd v. Talbert, 12 Ohio, 214, says: "The exaction of this right (forfeiture), meets with little countenance from the law, and he who asserts it must strictly comply with every condition to the letter." These elementary principles have never been abrogated in Ohio. There seems no satisfactory reason why they apply to freeholds and not to estates for years. The controlling feature of the principle is that an expectancy is not the subject of transfer; that a reverter depending on the happening of an uncertain event does not pass under the general terms of the deed. It follows that the right to declare the forfeiture before the expiration of the ten years never vested in Thompson. He could not, therefore, elect to terminate the estate. The above instruction to the jury would seem to be erroneous, and the complaint does not state a_cause that Thompson can maintain. The motion is allowed. Ridenour 67' Half/zz'll, for plaintiff in error. Ricliie, Leland 9' Roby, for defendant in error. DEBTQRS AND CREDITORScents Hamilton Commo