Putnam v. Davis

In Coleman v. Coleman, 94 N. H. 456, it was held that under the partition statute then in effect (R. L., c. 410, s. 1) remaindermen were not entitled to demand partition against a co-tenant in remainder and the life tenant, because the latter held an estate of a class different from that of the plaintiffs. See Brierley v. Brierley, 81 N. H. 133; Curtis Inn v. Pratte, 94 N. H. 380.

The statute has since been amended by the addition of a sentence which permits partition against holders of estates of different classes or duration, at the instance of a “holder in possession of a fee simple…