Legal Opinion

Carolina Mineral Co. v. Young

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 5, 1941PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeaweix, J.

Ordinarily, tbe existence of a lease on lands held in common ownership will not prevent partition at tbe instance of a coten-ant. 2 Tiffany, Eeal Property (3d Ed., 1939), 317, and cases cited. And this is true although one of tbe cotenants is lessee (Tiffany, loc. cit., supra), at least where actual division of tbe property is tbe relief sought. Buhrmeister v. Buhrmeister, 10 Cal. App., 392, 102 Pac., 221; Hunt v. Hazelton, 5 N. H., 216. Contra: Cannon v. Lomax, 29 S. C., 369, 7 S. E., 529. Where there is partition in kind, tbe ascertainment and allotment to tbe lessor-cotenant of bis share…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Hill v. RenoIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Foster v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Henderson v. HendersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
  4. Arnold v. ArnoldIllinois Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Latshaw v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wight v. Ingram-Day Lumber Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Brown v. BogerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Kayann Properties, Inc. v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Thomas v. WitteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. BondSupreme Court of Colorado · 1965

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API