Legal Opinion

Updike v. Adams

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided June 4, 1902PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Bill in Equity for partition. Heard on entry of decree.

1Per curiam

A party respondent to this suit of partition objects to a decree enforcing the payment of owelty as provided in the report of the commissioners.(1) The authorities seem to be almost unanimous that the general powers of courts of equity are broad enough to require a payment of this kind. Story’s Eq. Juris. §§ 654, 657 ; Pomeroy’s Eq. Juris. § 1389 ; 2 Dan. Chan. Pl. & Pr. * 1156 ; Bisp-ham’s Principles of Eq., 5th ed. § 492; Tiedeman Eq. Juris. § 523 ; Adams Eq. p. 449 ; Freeman on Cotenancy and Part. § 507; Beach on Mod. Eq. Juris. § 993 ; Clarendon v. Hornby, 1 P. Wms. 446 ; Horncastle v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cooter v. DearbornIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Martin v. MartinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1897
  3. Oliver v. JerniganSupreme Court of Alabama · 1871
  4. Calhoun v. RailMississippi Supreme Court · 1853

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sawin v. OsbornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  2. Hoerr v. HoerrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  3. Russell L. Newhall v. Marcia Elaine Newhall RollSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
  4. Keenan v. WadeAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
  5. FTR Farms v. Rist FarmNebraska Supreme Court · 2020

2 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