Moody v. Rathburn
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EEOM THE DISTEIOT COUET OF SCOTT COUNTY. '(The substance of the thirty-five “Points” made by the-Appellant in this cause, appears from the opinion of the Court.) I. — The Defendant’s answer does not contain any defence to the demand of judgment or decree for partition or sale con-tainéd in the complaint.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EEOM THE DISTEIOT COUET OF SCOTT COUNTY. '(The substance of the thirty-five “Points” made by the-Appellant in this cause, appears from the opinion of the Court.) I. — The Defendant’s answer does not contain any defence to the demand of judgment or decree for partition or sale con-tainéd in the complaint. The Defendant admits the title precisely as it is stated in the complaint, but alleges that the title is “subject to the conditions, provisions and contract” in the answer set forth. The contract on which all the alleged conditions and provisions rest, does not reach, or in any manner…
1Opinion of the Court
By th& Court
Emhett, O. J.
The Plaintiff alleges, in his complaint, that he and the Defendant own and possess, as tenants in common, certain lands in the county of Scott, together with the mills and improvements thereon; that his share or interest in said property is the equal undivided two-thirds, and that of the Defendant the undivided one-third thereof; that while said parties were using said property, and dividing the expenses and profits according to their respective interests aforesaid, the Defendant took sole possession thereof to the exclusion of the Plaintiff, and has since been in the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Robinson Bank v. MillerIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Orren v. Phoenix Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Union Savings & Loan Co. v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Perkins v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Seiler v. WilberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.