Ohio Supreme Court January 15, 1846 (Bohart v. Atkinson)

Birchard, J.

Several questions of interest arise in this ease, which will be separately considered. The position mainly relied on by complainant’s counsel is, that the respondent could not legally purchase the premises in controversy after having acted as an appraiser,^under the sheriff, in executing the writ of partition ; and that, having so purchased, he should be charged and *237held to an