Legal Opinion

Smalley v. Isaacson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 13, 1889PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal by defendant Isaacson from an order of tbe district court for Houston county, Farmer, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the second defence pleaded in his answer.

1Opinion of the CourtGtleillan, C. J.

This is an action for partition, and comes here by appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to one of. the defences set up in the answer of the defendant Isaacson. The com*451plaint states the source of plaintiff’s title thus: That February 7, 1859, Michael Sullivan was seized in fee of the land in question, and on that day died, leaving a will, (afterwards duly proved,) in which he devised his real estate thus: “After what the law allows my wife, the residue to be equally divided between my wife, Margaret, and sister, Julia Sullivan, and Timothy Sullivan, my brother.” The land in question was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sanborn v. MuellerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
  2. State ex rel. Prendergast v. Probate CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Winston v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  2. Nordlund v. DahlgrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  3. Rendahl v. HallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  4. Hanson v. IngwaldsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
  5. Doherty v. RyanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913

9 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