Witt vs Wagner and Irwin Heirs

Date: 3 Dec 1909 to 1 Jun 1910
Location: Green Township, Hamilton County, Ohio, United States
Surnames/tags: Irwin Wagner

Transcription

Below is a transcription of Wagners vs. Witts, et al.^[1]

The property involved is Lot 3 of the Irwin Estate, which Mary Elizabeth Irwin (1839-1907) inherited as an heir of her father, James Irwin (abt.1813-bef.1843), who was an heir of his father, William Irwin (abt.1775-bef.1843)--the original owner of the estate.^[2] For a complete history of the Irwin estate, see Westwood Irwin Estate.

---

Record Book ??? - Page 165

Petition

April Term A.D. 1910

Pleas at a separate session of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the First Judicial District begun and held at the Court House in the City of Cincinnati, County of Hamilton and State of Ohio in the Term of April A.D. 1910 before the honorable Jacob H. Bromwell, one of two judges of said court.

Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio

James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt, }
Plaintiffs }
Vs }
George Wagner and Mary Wagner, his wife, the unknown heirs }
and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs }
and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, Martha Windrum if living }
and if dead, the unknown heirs }

[Record Book ??? - Page] 166

and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, Stephen Mullins if }
living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen }
Mullins, deceased, Mellissa Mullins if living and if dead, the }
unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, deceased, }
George H. Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, Margaret Irwin if }
living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret }
Irwin, deceased, Catherine Irwin, if living and if dead, the }
unknown heirs and devisees of Catherine Irwin, deceased. }
Defendants }

Be it remembered that on the 3rd day of December A.D. 1909 came the above named plaintiff by their attorney and filed in this office of the clerk of said court their certain petition and ???? against the above named Defendants clothed in the words and figures following to wit.

Plaintiffs say that they are owners in fee simple and tenants in common, and are in actual of the following described real estate, viz.

Beginning at a stake in the north line of Lick Run Pike at the southwest corner of a tract of land owned by E. W. + Harry E. Dunaway, thence north 86’ 04’ west in the north line of said Lick Run Pike 100.02 feet to a stake thence in the in the north line of Lick Run Pike north 79.38’ west 473.41 feet to a stake, thence unto the north line of said Lick Run Pike north 61.04’ west 80.50feet to a point where the said north line of Lick Run Pike intersects the east line of Ferguson Road, thence in the east line of said Ferguson Road north 0.38’ east 803.77 feet to a stake in the south line of lot number two of Irwin’s partition of the east half of the south east quarter of section 8 township 2,Fractional Range 2, Miami Purchase, thence in said south line of lot number two north 89.22’ east 625.81 feet to a stake, thence south 0.4’ east in Dunaway’s west line 941.70 feet to the place of beginning, containing 12.88 acres of land, all as shown on plat of survey made by this county surveyor, recorded in Plat Book 27 page 196 County Surveyor’s records.

The plaintiffs say that the following defendants each claims an estate or interest in said real estate, the exact nature of which plaintiffs do not know, adverse to the plaintiffs rights, to wit, George Wagner and Mary

[Record Book ??? - Page] 167

Wagner, his wife, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, Martha Windrum if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, Stephen Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, Mellissa Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, George H. Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, Margaret Irwin if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased, Catherine Irwin, if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Catherine Irwin, deceased.

The plaintiffs pray that the defendants and each of them be compelled to disclose their respective interests in said property, and that the same may be adjudged to be null and void and the plaintiffs title quieted against the same. The plaintiffs pray for all other relief proper in the premises.

Peck, Schaffer, and Peck
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
State of Indiana, Union County, ss

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned a notary public in and for said county and state James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt, who, being first duly sworn say that the allegations set forth in the forgoing petition are true as they verily believe.

Frank I. Witt
George M. Witt
James P. Witt

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 27th day of November 1909.

George W. Pigman
Notary Public, Union County, Indiana

And afterwards, on this [illegible] day the following affidavit was filed in the office of the clerk of said court.

Hamilton County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court

Affidavit in Service to Publication

James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt, }
Plaintiffs }
Vs }

George Wagner and Mary Wagner, his wife, the unknown heirs }
and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs }
and devisees of Andrew Irwin, }

[Record Book ??? - Page] 168

deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, }
deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, }
deceased, Martha Windrum if living and if dead, the unknown }
heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, Stephen }
Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of }
Stephen Mullins, deceased, Mellissa Mullins if living and if }
dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, }
deceased, George H. Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown }
heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, et al }
Defendants }

State of Indiana, Union County, ss.

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for said county and state James P. Witt one of the plaintiffs in the above cause, who being first duly sworn, says that service of summons can not be made in this state of Ohio, upon the following defendants, Viz.

George Wagner and Mary Wagner, his wife, who reside at Hartford City in the state of Indiana, Martha Windrum, Stephen Mullins, Mellissa Mullins, and Georg H. Mullins, Margaret Irwin, and Catherine Irwin, and that the respective residences of each of these defendants is unknown and can not with reasonable diligence be ascertained. That the names and residences of the heirs and devisees of the following persons are unknown to the plaintiff Viz. the unknown heirs and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased. That this cause is one of those mentioned in section five thousand and forty-five of the revised statutes of Ohio, being for the partition of real estate.

James P. Witt

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 27th day of Nov 1909.

George W. Pigman
Notary Public, Union County, Indiana

[Record Book ??? - Page] 169

And afterwards to wit, the following order of court was made and entered upon the journal thereof to wit.

Court of Common Pleas Hamilton Ohio

Min 2476 Notary Ordering Publication

James P. Witt et al }
Plaintiff }
Vs }
George Wagner, Et al }
Defendants }

It being made to appear the names and residences of the following persons are unknown to the plaintiffs Viz. the unknown heirs and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased, and the unknown heirs. It is ordered that notice of the sending and prayer of this cause be made upon them by publication in the same manner and for the same time as in the case of the other non-resident defendants.

And afterwards, to wit, on the 4th day of December AD 1909 the following proof of mailing publication was filed in the office of the clerk of said court.

Proof of Mailing Publication

Notice

George Wagner and Mary Wagner, his wife, who reside at Hartford City, Indiana, Martha Windrum, Stephen Mullins, Mellissa Mullins, and Georg H. Mullins, Margaret Irwin, and Catherine Irwin, whose residences are unknown, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased, and the unknown heirs of Catharine Irwin, deceased. Will take notice that on the 3rd day of December 1909 James P. Witt George M. Witt and Frank J. Witt filed their petition in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, in case No. 144434 against the above named parties and others praying that said defendants and each of them be compelled to disclose and set up their interest in the following described real estate, that said interest be declared null and void and that the plaintiffs title to said real estate be

[Record Book ??? - Page] 170

quieted against the same and for all other relief proper in the premises.

Situate in Westwood, in the City of Cincinnati, In the county of Hamilton and state of Ohio, and more particularly described as follows,

Beginning at a stake in the north line of Lick Run Pike at the southwest corner of a tract of land owned by E. W. + Harry E. Dunaway, thence north 86’ 04’ west in the north line of said Lick Run Pike 100.02 feet to a stake thence in the in the north line of Lick Run Pike north 79.38’ west 473.41 feet to a stake, thence unto the north line of said Lick Run Pike north 61.04’ west 80.50feet to a point where the said north line of Lick Run Pike intersects the east line of Ferguson Road, thence in the east line of said Ferguson Road north 0.38’ east 803.77 feet to a stake in the south line of lot number two of Irwin’s partition of the east half of the south east quarter of section 8 township 2,Fractional Range 2, Miami Purchase, thence in said south line of lot number two north 89.22’ east 625.81 feet to a stake, thence south 0.4’ east in Dunaway’s west line 941.70 feet to the place of beginning, containing 12.88 acres of land, all as shown on plat of survey made by this county surveyor, recorded in Plat Book 27 page 196 County Surveyor’s records.

Said parties are required to answer on or before the 29th day of January 1910 or judgement will be taken against them.

Peck, Shaffer + Peck
Attorneys
Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County

I hereby certify that I mailed a copy of the above publication to George Wagner and Mary Wagner his wife at Harford City Indiana.

The testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court of Cincinnati this 4th day of December 1909,

P. W. Dunn, Clerk

By Albert Irving, Deputy and afterwards to wit on the 18th day of January AD 1910 there was filed in the office of the clerk of said court a certain answer and cross-petition.

Hamilton County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court

Answer + Cross Petition of George Wagner

James P. Witt, et al }
Plaintiff }
Vs }
George Wagner, et al }
Defendant }

Now comes George Wagner, one of the defendants herein and for answer to plaintiffs petition filed herein admits that he claims an estate and interest in the real estate described in plaintiffs petition, and denies each and every other allegation in the plaintiffs petition contained, not herein expressly admitted.

Cross-petition

This defendant says by way of cross-petition that he

[Record Book ??? - Page] 171

is the owner in fee simple of an undivided one half interest in the following described real estate,

Situated in Westwood in the City of Cincinnati, in the county of Hamilton and State of Ohio, and more particularly described as follows,

Beginning at a stake in the north line of Lick Run Pike at the southwest corner of a tract of land owned by E. W. + Harry E. Dunaway, thence north 86’ 04’ west in the north line of said Lick Run Pike 100.02 feet to a stake thence in the north line of Lick Run Pike north 79.38’ west 473.41 feet to a stake, thence unto the north line of said Lick Run Pike north 61.04’ west 80.50 feet to a point where the said north line of Lick Run Pike intersects the east line of Ferguson Road, thence in the east line of said Ferguson Road north 0.38’ east 803.77 feet to a stake in the south line of lot number two of Irwins partition of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 8 township 2, Fractional Range 2, Miami Purchase, thence in said south line of lot number two north 89.22’ east 625.81 feet to a stake, thence south 0.4’ east in Dunaways west line 841.70 feet to the place of beginning, containing 12.88 acres of land, all as shown on plat of survey made by this county surveyor, recorded in Plat Book 27 page 196 County Surveyor’s records.

The he is the son and only living child of Elizabeth Irwin Wagner deceased, who died in the month of June 1849 seized of an undivided one-third interest in the property described in plaintiffs petition and herein, and that the remaining two-thirds interest in said property was in Mary Irwin and Catherine Irwin his sisters who each were likewise the owners in fee simple of an undivided one-third. This defendant further says that Elizabeth Irwin Wagner, his mother and Catharine Irwin his sister are deceased, and that at the time if the death of said Elizabeth Irwin Wagner, this defendant and Mary Irwin, his sister were the only living children and heirs at law of Elizabeth Irwin Wagner, deceased, and that Mary Irwin, his sister who has since deceased, was the mother of James P. George M. and Frank J. Witt, the plaintiffs in this cause.

This defendant further says that at the time of the death of his mother in June of 1849 he was a minor of four years of age and was not a resident of this state, and that he has been absent from the state ever since the death of his mother up to and including the bringing of this cause herein by plaintiffs that he has continuously asserted his interest in said property and has made repeated efforts to require the plaintiffs in this cause and their mother Mary Irwin Witt, his sister to recognize his interest that they continuously refused so to do.

This defendant further says that said plaintiffs and their mother have collected rents for the past years from this property and have failed and refused to account to him for such moneys that they may have received.

This defendant further says the unknown heirs and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees

[Record Book ??? - Page] 172

of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, Martha Windrum if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, Stephen Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, Mellissa Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, deceased, George H. Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, Margaret Irwin if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased, and Catharine Irwin, if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Catharine Irwin, deceased. Each claim in estate or interest in said real estate, adverse to this defendants rights the exact nature of which this defendant does not know.

Wherefore this Defendant prays that said defendants mentioned herein be compelled to disclose their respective interest in said property, and that the same be adjudged to be null and void, that plaintiffs petition, so far as it relates to the defendant be dismissed, that the court find and declare that the defendant is the owner in fee simple of and undivided one-half interest in said Real Estate that his title against the remaining defendants be quieted and that plaintiffs account to this defendant for his share of the rents and profits they have collected out of said property, for his costs herein expanded, and for such other and further relief as he is in equity entitled to.

Eugene Adler
Attorney for Defendant George Wagner

And afterward to wit, on the 11th day of February AD 1910, the following proof of publication was filed in the office of said court.

Proof of Publication

State of Ohio }
Hamilton County } ss

Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for Hamilton County: Jos Witte, for publishers of the Cincinnati Enquirer, who being duly sworn says that the annexed advertisement was published in the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, a newspaper printed and of general circulation in said county Saturday December 4, 11, 18, 25, Jan 1, 8. Commencing on the 4th day of December 1909, and that each insertion was upon the same day of the week Viz, Saturday, affiant further says that a Daily and Weekly edition of said newspaper is and that the circulation of the daily in this county exceeds that of the weekly and that the cost of publication in the daily does not exceed the weekly.

Joseph Witte

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of February 1910.

Charles Runge
Notary Public Hamilton County, Ohio

[Record Book ??? - Page] 173

Notice

George Wagner and Mary Wagner, his wife, who reside in Hartford City, Indiana, Martha Windrum, Stephen Mullins, Mellissa Mullins, and Georg H. Mullins, Margaret Irwin, and Catherine Irwin, whose residences are unknown, and the unknown heirs and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha Windrum, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Mellissa Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, deceased, the unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased, and the unknown heirs of Catharine Irwin, deceased, will take notice that on this 3rd day of December 1909 James P. Witt, George M. Witt, and Frank I. Witt filed their petition in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, In case No. 144434 against the above named parties and other saying that said defendants and each of them be compelled to disclose and set up their interest in the following described real estate, that said interest be declared null and void, and that the plaintiffs title to said real estate be quieted against the same and for all other relief proper in the premises:

Situate in Westwood in the City of Cincinnati, in the county of Hamilton and State of Ohio, and more particularly described as follows,

Beginning at a stake in the north line of Lick Run Pike at the southwest corner of a tract of land owned by E. W. + Harry E. Dunaway, thence north 86’ 04’ west in the north line of said Lick Run Pike 100.02 feet to a stake thence in the north line of Lick Run Pike north 79.38’ west 473.41 feet to a stake, thence unto the north line of said Lick Run Pike north 61.04’ west 80.50 feet to a point where the said north line of Lick Run Pike intersects the east line of Ferguson Road, thence in the east line of said Ferguson Road north 0.38’ east 803.77 feet to a stake in the south line of lot number two of Irwins partition of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 8 township 2, Fractional Range 2, Miami Purchase, thence in said south line of lot number two north 89.22’ east 625.81 feet to a stake, thence south 0.4’ east in Dunaways west line 841.70 feet to the place of beginning, containing 12.88 acres of land, all as shown on plat of survey made by this county surveyor, recorded in Plat Book 27 page 196 County Surveyor’s records.

Said parties are required to answer on or before the 29th day of January 1910: of judgement will be taken against them.

Peck, Shaffer + Peck

Attorneys

And afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of February AD 1910, the following order of court was made and entered upon the journal thereof, to wit.

[Record Book ???? - Page] 174

Hamilton County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas

(Min 2399 Entry approving publication)

James P. Witt, et al }
Plaintiffs }
Vs }
George Wagner, et al }
Defendants }

Now come the plaintiffs by their attorney and offer proof of publication of the pendency and prayer of the petition herein, and the court finding said publication and proof in all respects regular and according to law and the former order of the court, do hereby approve the same. And afterwards to wit, on the 16th day of March AD 1910 the following answer was filed by leave in the office of the clerk of said court.

Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Min 2516 Leave given plaintiff to file answer.

James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt }
Plaintiffs }
Vs }
George Wagner, et al }
Defendants }

Now come the plaintiffs and for answer to the cross-petition of the defendant, George Wagner, admit that said defendant is the son of Elizabeth Irwin Wagner. They admit that Catherine Irwin, Mary Irwin Witt, the mother of the plaintiffs, and George Wagner were the sole descendants of Elizabeth Irwin Wagner, but they allege that the property involved herein was the ancestral property of James Irwin, deceased, the former husband of Elizabeth Irwin Wagner and that Catherine Irwin and Mary Irwin Witt were the soul children resulting from the marriage of James Irwin and Elizabeth Irwin. That the defendant George Wagner is the son of Elizabeth Irwin, who after the death of her first husband James Irwin, married the father of said defendant, George Wagner, who was the issue from said second marriage, that they said Elizabeth Irwin Wagner had no other interest in the property involved herein except a dower interest in the same, which interest ceased at her death that the defendant George Wagner, has no interest in said property. The plaintiffs further admit that ever since the death of his mother Elizabeth Irwin Wagner in June 1849 the defendant George Wagner, continuously asserted an interest in said property, and made repeated efforts to require the plaintiffs in this cause and their mother Mary Irwin Witt, his half-sister, to recognize his interest but that they continuously refused so to do.

They admit that they have refused to account to him any rents they may have received from the property.

Plaintiffs deny each and every other allegation of the answer and cross-petition not herein above admitted, and ask that said cross-petition be dismissed, that their title be quieted against any claim said defendant may assert against the same, and for all other relief proper in the

[Record Book ???? - Page] 175

premises.

Peck, Shaffer + Peck
Attorneys for plaintiffs

State of Indiana }
Union County } ss

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and four said county and state, James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt, who being first duly sworn, say that the allegations set forth in the foregoing answer are true as they verily believe.

Frank I. Witt
James P. Witt
George M. Witt

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 15th day of March 1910.

George W. Pigman
Notary Public Union County Indiana

Depositions

1910 May 11th depositions on behalf of plaintiff and afterwards to wit, on the first day of June AD 1910, there was filed by leave in the office of the clerk of said court a certain answer.

Hamilton County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court

Min 3634 Leave Given File Answer.

James P. Witt, at al }
Plaintiffs }
Vs }
George Wagner, et al }
Defendants }

Now come the plaintiffs and by leave of court first obtained file their supplement to their answer to the cross-petition of George Wagner. The plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference and make a part thereof, the same as if fully written out, the allegations and statements contained in the original answer heretofor filed by them to the cross petition of said George Wagner, and allege the facts contained therein to be true.

Plaintiffs further say that, by reason of the facts set forth in said original answer, the rights of the defendant George Wagner our banned by the statute of limitations, wherefore the plaintiffs pray in their original answer aforesaid.

Peck, Shaffer + Peck
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

State of Ohio, Hamilton County, ss

George M. Witt, being first duly sworn says he is one of the plaintiffs and that the facts stated and allegations contained in the foregoing supplement are true as he verily believe.

George M. Witt

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of June 1910.

Geo B. Manley

Notary Public, Hamilton County, Ohio

And on the same day, to wit, the following order of court was made, and entered upon the journal thereof, to wit.

[Record Book ???? - Page] 176

Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Min 3634 Decree

James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt }
Plaintiffs }
Vs }
George Wagner and Mary Wagner, his wife, the unknown heirs }
and devisees of Mary Ritchey, deceased, the unknown heirs }
and devisees of John Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Elizabeth Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Andrew Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Nancy Irwin, deceased, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Martha Irwin, deceased, Martha Windrum if living }
and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of Martha }
Windrum, deceased, Stephen Mullins if living and if dead, the }
unknown heirs and devisees of Stephen Mullins, deceased, }
Mellissa Mullins if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Mellissa Mullins, deceased, George H. Mullins if }
living and if dead, the unknown heirs and devisees of George H. Mullins, }
deceased, Margaret Irwin if living and if dead, the }
unknown heirs and devisees of Margaret Irwin, deceased, }
Catherine Irwin, if living and if dead, the unknown heirs and }
devisees of Catherine Irwin, deceased. }
Defendants }

This day this cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the plaintiffs, the answer and cross petition of the defendant George Wagner, the answer of the plaintiffs to the cross petition of the said George Wagner and also the supplement to same and upon the evidence, and was submitted to the court, upon consideration whereof the court find that all of the defendants have been duly notified of the pendency and prayer of the petition and are present in court, but that all of said defendants are in default for answer or pleading except said defendant George Wagner and the court further find on the issue proved in favor of the plaintiffs that, at the time of bringing of this action, the plaintiffs were in possession of the real property described in the petition, that they had a legal estate in and are entitled to the possession of the same, that neither the defendants nor any one of them have any estate nor are entitled to the possession of said real estate, or any part thereof, and that the

[Record Book ???? - Page] 177

plaintiffs ought to have their possession and title quieted as against each and every one of said defendants, as prayed for in this petition.

Wherefore it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the title and possession of said plaintiffs James P. Witt, George M. Witt and Frank I. Witt to all and several the premises in the petition described, to wit.

Situated in Westwood in the City of Cincinnati, in the county of Hamilton and State of Ohio, and more particularly described as follows, beginning at a stake in the north line of Lick Run Pike at the southwest corner of a tract of land owned by E. W. + Harry E. Dunaway, thence north 86’ 04’ west in the north line of said Lick Run Pike 100.02 feet to a stake thence in the north line of Lick Run Pike north 79.38’ west 473.41 feet to a stake, thence unto the north line of said Lick Run Pike north 61.04’ west 80.50 feet to a point where the said north line of Lick Run Pike intersects the east line of Ferguson Road, thence in the east line of said Ferguson Road north 0.38’ east 803.77 feet to a stake in the south line of lot number two of Irwins partition of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 8 township 2, Fractional Range 2, Miami Purchase, thence in said south line of lot number two north 89.22’ east 625.81 feet to a stake, thence south 0.4’ east in Dunaways west line 841.70 feet to the place of beginning, containing 12.88 acres of land, all as shown on plat of survey made by this county surveyor, recorded in Plat Book 27 page 196 County Surveyor’s records, be and the same are hereby quieted as against said defendants and each and every one of them, and as against all persons claiming under or through them or any one of them, and the said defendants and each and every one of them, and all persons claiming under or through them, are hereby forever enjoined from setting up any claim or claims to said premises or any part thereof adverse to the title and possession of said plaintiffs or in any manner interfering with their use and enjoyment of the same.

It is further ordered that the plaintiffs recover from the defendants their cost here in expended, taxed at $____

Final Entry

Sources

1. ↑ April 1910 Term, Court of Common Pleas. Hamilton County, Ohio, United States.
2. ↑ Elizabeth Irwin deed to Ellis Dunaway. Hamilton County Recorder, Cincinnati, Ohio. Deed Book 102, Page 58. Accessed at the website of the Hamilton County Recorder on April 30, 2022.