The deeds to and from Wright were deeds of partition. They in no way affected the title of the parties. Their only effect was to sever the joint possession. They left the title just where they found it. After their execution, the parties held separate and distinct tracts by virtue, not of any new, but of their ancient titles. (Goundie v. Northampton W. Co., 7 Barr, 233; Dawson v. Lawrence, 13 Ohio, 543; Doe v. Dixon, 5 Ad. & Ell. 834; McClure v. McClure, 2 Har. 134; Tabler v. Wiseman, 2 Ohio (N. S.) 207; Coates v. Street, 2 Ash. 12.)
The allotment to plaintiff, by those deeds, of the premises in controversy simply confirmed the conveyance which she had previously made to defendant. (Johnson v. Stevers, 7 Cush. 433; McKey v. Welch, 22 Texas, 390; Holcomb v. Corryell, 3 Stockt. (N.J.) 548; Varnum v. Abbott , 12 Mass. 466.)
JUDGES: Crockett, J. Mr. Justice Rhodes dissented.
OPINION
CROCKETT, Judge
The foregoing opinion was delivered at the April term, 1872. A rehearing was granted, and at the October term, 1875, the following opinion was delivered:
By the Court:
A majority of the Court adheres to the original opinion filed in this case, which will, therefore, stand as the opinion of the Court.
Judgment affirmed.