Hanson v. Willard
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was a petition for partition under the provisions of stat. of 1821, ch. 37, in which the petitioners stated that they were owners and interested, in certain proportions, with others, in the Province mill privilege and the mill standing thereon ; that, they could not improve their respective parts to advantage, while the same were in common and undivided,” and “ prayed that their said parts might be set off, and assigned to them in severalty.”
Read the full summary
This was a petition for partition under the provisions of stat. of 1821, ch. 37, in which the petitioners stated that they were owners and interested, in certain proportions, with others, in the Province mill privilege and the mill standing thereon ; that, they could not improve their respective parts to advantage, while the same were in common and undivided,” and “ prayed that their said parts might be set off, and assigned to them in severalty.” The respondents, by their plea, objected to the partition prayed for, because they alleged, “ that the several parts could not be divided and set…
1Opinion of the Court
*144At a subsequent term, the opinion of the Court was delivered W
Parris J.
By the common law, parceners might be compelled, by writ, to have partition of their inheritance, but until the statute of 31 Hen. VIII, ch. 1, there was no mode of compelling partition among joint-tenants and tenants in common. They might make an amicable division of their joint or common property, but unless all would agree to such a division, no individual could obtain a partition whereby he might enjoy his share in severalty. The preamble to that statute recites the inconveniences to which those might be subjected, who…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Libby v. LorrainSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
- Forrest Milling Co. v. Cedar Falls Mill Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Milner v. BrokhausenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Truth Lodge No. 213 v. BartonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903