Chew v. . Sheldon
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered December 30, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint upon the merits by the court on trial at Special Term in an action of partition. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered December 30, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint upon the merits by the court on trial at Special Term in an action of partition. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. At the time of the commencement of this action the title of the parties hereto to the lands in question was not subject to any estate therein created by their father’s will; and Carrie A. Sheldon is not the owner of any “ particular estate”…
1Dissent
Willard Bartlett, Ch. J. (dissenting).
In Kingman v. Kingman [121 Mass. 249) the testator gave to his daughter “the use and improvement of so much of my house as she may need during her life, and also a privilege at the fire, which I have made for my wife, while they live together.” The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the daughter took an interest in the nature of an easement or servitude under this provision of her father’s will. I think that Carrie Sheldon took a similar easement or servitude under the will in the present case. As our brother Cuddeback has correctly said,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kingman v. KingmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876