McMahan v. Newcomer
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Hamilton Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
The petition of the appellees alleges that they are the owners in fee of an undivided interest in lands, and prays a decree of partition.
The petition avers that the appellees are the owners in fee of the land sought to be partitioned, but does not specifically set forth the title. This is sufficient. “ In pleading a fee simple, it is only necessary to simply state it, because it includes the entire interest in the land.” McMannus v. Smith, 53 Ind. 211.
The appellant James G. McMahan filed a cross complaint or counter-claim, in which he asserted title to the entire tract, and controverted the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Reynolds v. CopelandIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- State v. WenzelIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Schori v. StephensIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- Siceloff v. Redman's AdministratorIndiana Supreme Court · 1866
- Doe on demise of Patterson v. JackmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1854
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Ragsdale v. MitchellIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Luntz v. GreveIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Ridgeway v. LanphearIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Miller v. NobleIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Kenney v. PhillipyIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.