Richardson v. Monson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill brought to the superior court for the county of Litchfield, by Leonard Richardson and William H. Barnum, alleging, that they were tenants, in fee simple and in common, with the defendants, of a certain ore bed, called the Davis Ore Bed, situated in the town of Salisbury, together with the privilege of digging and carrying away the ore from said bed.
Read the full summary
This was a bill brought to the superior court for the county of Litchfield, by Leonard Richardson and William H. Barnum, alleging, that they were tenants, in fee simple and in common, with the defendants, of a certain ore bed, called the Davis Ore Bed, situated in the town of Salisbury, together with the privilege of digging and carrying away the ore from said bed. The rights and interests of a portion of the defendants were alleged to be subject to a lease, in writing, to the defendants, dated January 1, 1851, whereby it was agreed, that the latter should hold and occupy said land and ore…
1Opinion of the CourtChurch, C. J.
The plaintiffs allege, in their bill, that j they, together with the defendants, are tenants in common of ¡certain rights of digging, raising and carrying away iron ore .from the Davis ore bed in Salisbury; that they are disturbed in the exercise of this right, by the improper interference of some of the defendants, by reason of which they are deprived of the enjoyment of their common property. They pray for a partition, by a sale of the premises, according to the provisions of the statute of 1853, entitled “ an act in addition to an act for the regulation of proceedings in equity.” This act…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Schnitt v. McKellarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Johnson v. OlmstedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
- Delfino v. VealencisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Penfield v. JarvisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.