Page v. Webster
Michigan Supreme Court
Questions reserved from Montcalm Circuit in chancery, where Canso Crane, one of the defendants, had interposed a 'demurrer to the bill of complaint, for multifariousness. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Martin Cii. J.:
This bill is filed for partition of real estate held by the complainants and defendants as tenants in common. As to Webster, who is described as being the owner of an undivided one-fourth, the bill is taken as confessed. Crane is represented as the owner of another undivided one-fourth, and the bill further alleg'es that he has a pretended title which he claims to hold as adverse to that of his co-tenants, but which is averred to be fraudulent and void; *264and they ask to have it so declared in order that partition of the several interests of the owners may be made. The facts…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Van Horne v. FondaNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
- Overton's Heirs v. WoolfolkCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1838
- Lewis v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
3Cited by32 opinions
- Dubois v. CampauMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Cocks v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Hunter v. BosworthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Battin v. WoodsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- Peck v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.