Legal Opinion

Young v. Pickens

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1874PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Erom the Clay Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtDowney, J.

This was an action for the partition of real estate, and there was judgment for the appellees, the defendants, in the common pleas. The errors properly assigned call in question the sufficiency of the second and third paragraphs of the answer of Pickens, and the refusal of the court, on motion of the plaintiffs, to grant a new trial. The complaint is in two paragraphs. We do not deem it necessary to set it out in full. The leading facts of the case are, that one Alexander Connely was seized in fee of the land, at his death, on the 25th day of November, 1857, and that he left a will. On the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Collins v. CarmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
  2. Hilliard v. Binford's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
  3. Kelly v. StinsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1847
  4. Ostrander v. SpickardIndiana Supreme Court · 1846
  5. Smith v. BaldwinIndiana Supreme Court · 1850

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Weight v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Wilson v. MooreIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. O'Harrow v. WhitneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Wetherill v. HarrisIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Boyd v. HodsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1947

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API