Hoyt v. Kimball
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition for partition between tenants in common. The defendants filed pleas, as follows : “And now the said Kimball and Powell come and defend, &c. ; and say that the said Hoyt was not on the day of the exhibition of his said petition, nor has he been at any time since, nor is he now seized of one undivided third part, nor of any share or proportion of the said premises in common and undivided as he has in his said petition alleged, and thereof put themselves on the…
Read the full summary
Petition for partition between tenants in common. The defendants filed pleas, as follows : “And now the said Kimball and Powell come and defend, &c. ; and say that the said Hoyt was not on the day of the exhibition of his said petition, nor has he been at any time since, nor is he now seized of one undivided third part, nor of any share or proportion of the said premises in common and undivided as he has in his said petition alleged, and thereof put themselves on the country.” “And for further jilea in this behalf, the said Kimball and Powell, say that the said Hoyt ought not to have…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
Althouth it is suggested by the petitioner’s counsel that, for aught that appears, the property may be divided in three equal separate parts, it is also admitted that, when divided, each will be taken, by the party to whom it is assigned, subject to the stipulations contained in the deeds. It is said that the “ partition may be had in the same way that it might be made, if the property were subject to a mortgage, attachment, or other lien, where the incumbrance was one for which all the parties were equally bound. Gen. Stat. ch. 228, sec. 19 ; Kelley v. Kelley, 41 N. H. 501.”
On the other…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stanley v. ColtSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Wheeler v. WalkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Lynde v. HoughNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Taylor v. GilpinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1861
3Cited by2 opinions
- Red Hill Outing Club v. HammondSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998
- Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad v. Boston & Lowell RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888