Higgins v. Higgins
Higgins v. Higgins
Opinion of the Court
It is urged in behalf of defendants in error, that under section 4158, Revised Statutes, the rights of James, whether legal or equitable, descended to his son, Darlton. This is true, but
As to John Higgins, it must be perfectly clear, that he parted with the legal title to the lands by a sale thereof, and not by easting the title by descent on another; and it is equally clear, that if John parted with the legal title by sale, that Darlton acquired the legal title by purchase. The legal title passing from John to Darlton, could not go from John by sale, and be received by Darltou by descent. Being a sale of the legal title by John, it was a purchase by Darlton, and Darlton Higgins therefore received the legal title by purchase and not by descent. True, he inherited from his father whatever equity the father had in the lands, but in determining questions as to whether lands came by purchase or descent, regard is had to the legal title alone, uninfluenced by considerations of equity. Patterson v. Lamson, 45 Ohio St., 77; Stembel v. Martin, 50 Ohio St., 495.
The controlling facts of this case are conceded by the parties, and in such cases, upon a reversal, this court may proceed and render such judgment
The circuit court erred in applying the law to the conceded facts and its judgment is therefore reversed, and a decree entered in favor of the plaintiff in error, quieting her title to said lands in fee simple.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.