Whitman v. O'Connor
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Venango County
No. 268 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 82 August Term 1890, C. P. On August 11, 1890, Lemuel H. Whitman and Olive M. Whitman, his wife, in right of said Olive, brought an action against Martin O’Connor, for the partition of a tract of land in Sugarcreek township, containing about fifty acres.
Read the full summary
No. 268 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 82 August Term 1890, C. P. On August 11, 1890, Lemuel H. Whitman and Olive M. Whitman, his wife, in right of said Olive, brought an action against Martin O’Connor, for the partition of a tract of land in Sugarcreek township, containing about fifty acres. The plaintiffs’ declaration stated the interest of Olive M. Whitman in said land to be the undivided one third, and that of the defendant to be the undivided two thirds thereof. On the return day of the- writ, the defendant not appearing, the court entered judgment quod partitio fiat, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mb. Justice Green :
The plaintiff in this action of partition is the owner of one undivided third part of the land in question, and the defendant is the owner of the remaining two thirds. The inquest divided the land into three purparts of exactly the same size each, but did not value any of them; and they also allotted one purpart to the plaintiff, and two purparts to the defendant. The inquisition was returned to court on January 26,1891, and the same day exceptions were filed, and a motion was made by defendant to strike off the inquisition. On April 13, 1891, the rule was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eyerman v. Detwiller, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1890
- Dana v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sanders's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Harbin v. HardeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940