Martin v. Jones

• Decision Date: 24 April 1900
• Citation: 57 N.E. 238,62 Ohio St. 519
• Parties: MARTIN v. JONES et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

57 N.E. 238

62 Ohio St. 519

MARTIN v. JONES et al.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 24, 1900

Error to circuit court, Belmont county.

Action by one Martin, administrator of Abner Jones, against the heirs of said Jones. From a judgment of the circuit court reversing a judgment of the common pleas reversing a judgment of the probate court dismissing petition, plaintiff brings error. Judgment in circuit court reversed, and in common pleas affirmed.

Susanna J. Price, mother of Abner Jones, on the 23d day of September 1881, made a deed as follows: ‘Know all men by these presents, that I, Susanna J. Price, in the consideration of the sum of three hundred dollars in hand paid by Abner Jones do bargain, sell, and covey unto the said Abner Jones, and his children after him, the following premises, situate in the county of Belmont and state of Ohio, viz. being a part of section twenty-three (23), township No. seven (7), and range No. five (5), and being lots No. sixteen and No. seventeen on the town plat of the village of Fairmount; to have and to hold said premises with the appurtenances thereunto the said Abner Jones and his heirs, forever; and the said Susanna J Price, for herself and heirs, covenants with the said Abner Jones and heirs that she is lawfully seised of the premises, and that the premises are free and clear from all incumbrances whatsoever, and that she will warrant and defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and seal this 23d day of September, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one.’ Abner Jones went into possession of the property thus conveyed, and held possession until his death. His administrator filed a petition in the probate court to sell the said real estate, to pay debts of Abner Jones. The children of Abner Jones answered, setting out the deed, denying that Abner Jones was seised of said real estate in fee simple, and claiming that he had only a life estate, with remainder in fee to his children. A demurrer to the answer by the plaintiff was overruled by the probate court, and petition dismissed. The judgment of the probate court was reversed by the common pleas couet, and the circuit court reversed the judgment of the common pleas.

Syllabus by the Court

A conveyance to A. J., ‘and his children after him,’ with habendum to A. J. ‘and his heirs forever,’ is a conveyance to A. J. in fee simple; the...