Murray v. Murray
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Elston v. PiggottIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Berryhill v. SeppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Brittin v. HandySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
- McCready v. FredericksenUtah Supreme Court · 1912
- McNutt v. Nuevo Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. ReinkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- State Ex Rel. Blee v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Sharples Corp. v. Sinclair Wyoming Oil Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1946
- Slagle v. SlagleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Brougham v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.