Hide Article Text (OCR)
The Taylor-Boggs Case.The Supreme Court of Ohio, on 29th ult., gave its decision in the case of Thos. F. Taylor and others, vs. John Boggs, Dr.youn: law c chanj T11A. Ball, Executors, and others, carried up Firstteby defendants, confirming the decision in Muskingum Common Pleas‘Court, in favor of plaintiffs. This suit involved four hundred acres of land, adjoining Zanesville, now very valuable, which this decision decrees to the Tavlor heirs. As this•»case is of some local interest, we give itshistorv:•»Captain James Taylor, a Revolutionary soldier and early settler of Muskingum county, in 1804, purchased 225 acres of land, lying across the river from the north part of Zanesville, and located upon it shortly after. In 1S17 he purchased an additional quantity adjoining the first tract on the north, the whole tract then consist ingof 960acres. Within a month after the last purchase, he sold the entire tractlast 5are slt;An lie Cconv the 8]Ti C500 1 lin, \Tt21 stMill.Millplac.H.acceLafanto two brothers, named Boyd, who mort gaged the property to Taylor to secure deferred payments. The Boyds divided the land between themselves, and settled upon it in different localities. In 1S25. Taylor foreclosed his morcgage, and bought in lhe tract, except one hundred acres, which had been laid oft into lots, ‘called the ’Burg, and sold. Under a compromise, the daughter of one of the Boyds (he having died), filed a bill in chancery, and a decree was made by agreement giving Taylor so much off of the south end of i the farm, as at $19 55 per acre, would satisfy his claim for unpaid purchase money* and giving the remainder to the Boyds.n 00 j^ j Under this decree, in 1826, Taylor took JJ ^ 472^ acres, including both dwelling 1 ^He \1st,Clt; of Iacrefortow 1ie!iOOOChaceasI)the lt;as flt; cars99 chouses, and removed from his “Upper'101 x j wasvFarm,” about six miles distant, back to t^e I this land and resided upon it until 1S43, j ^when he died without issue. In January, .is J - * li„ , 1842, Ta\’Ior made his will, bv which he , le ^ J ’ - nendevised to his wile, Jane Taylor, “the,-y I , , , ^ . ; ctsa-Ye-rewillerircottwe3n►ly•du-whole of my home farm, on which I now ;, dicereside, and all of his estate not disposed j ^ jof otherwise, to the children of his nephew ^Grundy Taylor, as residuary legatees and J devisees. Some time after Taylor’s death ill ] his widow, whose maiden name was Me-n- j Mechen, married her brother in law, John Ir- I Boggs, Sen., (father of John and James T. j ^ed Boggs, of this county), whose first wife be ; was a sister of Mrs. Taylor. Mrs. Boggs,ncc Taylor, survived her second husband^ j j ^ and at her death, bequeathed by will her estate to thirteen persons, including John Boggs, James T. Boggs, Moses Boggs’ heirs, John A. Wolfley’s heirs, Mrs. Al-! ired Williams, ann others, of this county',in i who were the real parties in interest on the! * 12part of the defence, her executors being the nominal parties defendant. j ^an | The plaintiffs claimed that although the a ' entire tract, consisting, with the ‘Burg ar- lots, added by purchase, of about 490i Hvlie acres, was farmed as one tract, at least from 1835, and was taxed as one farm, and by direction of Taylor platted as one tract, Taylor always regarded the line ofirt1sted nanc1Sis ger i are ant ne:ounden-waha.1 - 1 gai,ay division made by' the Boyds, as dividing j CQ|lce the tract into two farms and that his will - ^ ity only passed to his widow 150 acres oft'the lor i south end, the plaintiffs claiming the re- sot mainder as residuary legatees of Taylor.The defendants claimed that the devisehean,S.ss’tanTVharch 7 atjht,diden111COvio1uss ’, to ightbethgave to the widow the entire tract, as it was occupied, farmed and treated by Capt. Tavlor.The Supreme Court held: Where a ste rer’ j testator owned two adjoining farms, which j had been for many years cultivated and managed as separate and distinct farms, and were known and designated by him by different names, the farm on which he Clt; resided and which was cultivated by him the “Home Farm,” and the other, which was cultivated by tenants, the “Jo Boyd ! ^3i the 1 Farm;” but for several years next preced V ing the date of his will these farms had j ar been managed and cultivated by an agent to of the testator, as one farm, without re gard to the division line between them; and the testator by his will devised his “home farm” to his wife. Held: That pa rol evidence was admissible to prove that the testator was in the habit, as well after tung the two farms had become so united in ^ their management as belore, and down to un the time of making his will, of calling the two farms by their former names, designating the one on which he resided as the at “Home Farm,’, and the other as the “Jo. j tl .. Boyd farm.” 1 q11 es I Held also: That it was not error in the Court to instruct the jury that it was for them to decide in wh.ch of the two senses the testator used the words “home farm,” whether as designating the old home farm , or the entire tract composed of the two thus united.This cause has been in litigation since j *1 186S, and was tried lour times in Muskingum county. The costs and lawyers’ fees are estimated at $20,000.nedwithashicheCirththbyDOUtfur-Slirn at id ayisted at a6fterv-___otl
Newspaper Details
Circleville Democrat and Watchman
Circleville, Ohio, US
Fri, Mar 10, 1876
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
Vanessa S.
CA 21 Sep 2019
Other Publications Near Circleville, Ohio
Circleville Democrat and Watchman
Circleville Daily Union Herald
Circleville Herald
