Legal Opinion

McClaskey v. Barr

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio

Decided December 4, 1889PublishedCited by 3 opinions

In Equity. Bill for partition.

1Opinion of the CourtSage, J.

This cause is before the court upon exceptions for insufficiency to the answer of the defendant John Keeshan to the second amended bill, and to the amendment thereto. There are 24 exceptions. It is not necessary, nor would it come within the ordinary limits of an opinion, to set- them out at length. The bill is for partition. There are 200 or *560300 defendants, each holding one or more lots of the tract described in the bill, but all averred to be tenants in common with the complainants, who sue as heirs of Mary Jane Barr. It is averred in the amendment to the second amended bill that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ex Parte BoydSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Overton's Heirs v. WoolfolkCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1838
  3. Gaines v. AgnellyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana · 1872

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. J. H. Day Co. v. Mountain City Mill Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1915
  2. People's United States Bank v. GilsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
  3. Whittemore v. PattenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1897

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

Powered by the Exa API