Legal Opinion

McKeen v. Haskell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1886No. 11,610PublishedCited by 4 opinions

From the Vanderburgh Superior Court.

1Opinion of the CourtHowk, C. J.

On the 24th day of April, 1883, appellee Haskell commenced this suit against the appellant, McKeen, as sole defendant. In his complaint Haskell alleged that he was the owner in fee simple, and entitled to the possession,, of lot No. 166, in that part of the city of Evansville known as Lamasco, in Vanderburgh, county, Indiana, and that McKeen wrongfully and without right detained and kept possession thereof from the plaintiff. Wherefore, etc.

Afterwards, on June 14th, 1883, Haskell filed what is called the second paragraph of his complaint against appellant McKeen, and Charles F. Yeager,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Flinn v. ParsonsIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Helms v. WagnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Board of Commissioners v. MurphyIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Peckham v. MillikanIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Vogel v. VoglerIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Morrison v. JacobyIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Ludlow v. LudlowIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Littler v. RobinsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1906
  4. City of Indianapolis v. ByrneIndiana Court of Appeals · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API