The Northeastern Reporter, Volume 78West Publishing Company, 1907 - Law Includes the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Court of Appeals of New York; May/July 1891-Mar./Apr. 1936, Appellate Court of Indiana; Dec. 1926/Feb. 1927-Mar./Apr. 1936, Courts of Appeals of Ohio. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 19
... appellant alone . Up- on his appeal to this court we found the relative values of the two lots and that the appellee ... appellant . John Leo Fay , for appellee . HAND , J. This was a bill in chancery fil- ed by the appellant against the ...
... appellant alone . Up- on his appeal to this court we found the relative values of the two lots and that the appellee ... appellant . John Leo Fay , for appellee . HAND , J. This was a bill in chancery fil- ed by the appellant against the ...
Page 20
... appellant in his old age , and that subsequent to their marriage she repudiated said agreements by mistreat- ing the appellant and his adopted daughter , and by claiming to be the absolute owner of said real estate free from any claim ...
... appellant in his old age , and that subsequent to their marriage she repudiated said agreements by mistreat- ing the appellant and his adopted daughter , and by claiming to be the absolute owner of said real estate free from any claim ...
Page 45
... appellant failed to show that , as against the appellees , he had a prescrip- tive right to have the waters of Hadley creek cast upon the lands of the appellees and his lands relieved from the burden of the waters of said creek . The ...
... appellant failed to show that , as against the appellees , he had a prescrip- tive right to have the waters of Hadley creek cast upon the lands of the appellees and his lands relieved from the burden of the waters of said creek . The ...
Page 72
Robert B. Honeyman , for appellant . Eu- gene L. Bushe , for respondents . HISCOCK , J. The controversy submitted for our determination arises in an action of partition . It presents the question wheth- er the requirement that the appellant ...
Robert B. Honeyman , for appellant . Eu- gene L. Bushe , for respondents . HISCOCK , J. The controversy submitted for our determination arises in an action of partition . It presents the question wheth- er the requirement that the appellant ...
Page 79
... appellant to explain it . So much for the matter in the absence of direct proof of an adverse holding . Upon that point it is to be recollected that the witnesses , whom appellee offered , disclaimed the idea that there was any claim of ...
... appellant to explain it . So much for the matter in the absence of direct proof of an adverse holding . Upon that point it is to be recollected that the witnesses , whom appellee offered , disclaimed the idea that there was any claim of ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action adverse possession affirmed alleged amount appellant's Appellate Court Appellate Division appellee applied assessment authority averred bank bill bonds cause Cent charge circuit court claim coal complaint construction contract contributory negligence Cook county corporation court of equity creditor damages death deceased decree deed defendant defendant's demurrer dramshop duty easements election evidence execution facts fendant filed finding foreclosure heirs held husband injury issue Judge judgment June 14 jury land liable lien Mass ment mortgage motion negligence Note.-For officer Ohio opinion overruled owner paid parties payment person petition petitioner plaintiff in error proceedings purchase question railroad railway real estate reason rule seisin statute street Suffolk County superior court supra Supreme Court Supreme Judicial Court taxes testator thereof tiff tion trust Vault Company verdict witness