Cunningham v. Krutz
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Bell, J., entered January 6, 1905, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for partition.
1Opinion of the CourtHadley, J.
This is an action for the partition of real estate. The plaintiffs allege that they are seized in fee simple of the undivided half interest in the land, and that the defendants Harry Krutz and Mary E. Eoster are tenants in common with plaintiffs in the ownership of the land. The defendants Harry Krutz and wife, by their answer, deny that the plaintiffs have any interest whatever in the land, either as tenants in common with the defendants or otherwise. They also deny that the defendant Mary E. Eoster has any interest in the land except that she holds a mortgage thereon for $500. It is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Wilcox v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Bernier v. BernierSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- McCune v. EssigSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Hall v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Kromer v. FridayWashington Supreme Court · 1895
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Teynor v. HeibleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Wadkins v. Producers' Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1912
- Eckert v. SchmittWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Delacey v. Commercial Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
- Davies v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1937
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.