Cost v. Rose
Illinois Supreme Court
The opinion of the court sets out a sufficient statement of the case.
1Opinion of the CourtSkinner, J.
This was a bill in chancery for partition. The bill alleges that Solomon Serin in his lifetime, was seized in fee of the N. E. i Sec. 3, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., of the fourth principal meridian; that in 1851 „he died intestate, and that the land subject to the widow’s dower therein, descended to his children and their decendants in seven equal portions, as tenants in common ; that five of these children and the decendants of such of them as are deceased, have conveyed their interests in the estate, being five-sevenths thereof, unto Samuel Cost; that the land is held and owned in common, as follows:…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- White v. MorrisonIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
- Ward v. OwensIllinois Supreme Court · 1850
- Jacobus v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by9 opinions
- Capehart v. CunninghamWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- Rhoads v. RhoadsIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Tompkins v. WiltbergerIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Hobson v. EwanIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Roodhouse v. RoodhouseIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.