Legal Opinion

Murray v. Murray

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 11, 1924No. 23,910PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Action for the partition of land. The court found that each of the plaintiffs owned an undivided 1/84 of the land involved, and that the defendant William Murray owned the remaining undivided 82/84. The 1/84 of each of the plaintiffs came by descent from their grandmother who inherited 1/7 upon the death of a sister of their father. There is no question of the finding that each of the plaintiffs has 'an undivided 1/84. They claim that in addition to the 2/84 they own an undivided 1/7. The court found against them. The controversy is over this 1/7. They appeal from- the order denying their…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Elston v. PiggottIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Berryhill v. SeppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
  3. Brittin v. HandySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
  4. McCready v. FredericksenUtah Supreme Court · 1912
  5. McNutt v. Nuevo Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brown v. ReinkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  2. State Ex Rel. Blee v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  3. Sharples Corp. v. Sinclair Wyoming Oil Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Slagle v. SlagleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  5. Brougham v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940

1 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