Trowbridge v. Caulkins

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Trowbridge v. Caulkins

23 A. 1102, 17 R.I. 580, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 38

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided January 23, 1892·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that partition should not be decreed against the respondents’ objections thereto, so long as the mortgage and other debts remain outstanding. Hendry v. Hollingdrake, 16 R. I. 477.

We will overrule the demurrer and allow the cause to stand until the lien for debts upon the estates of which partition is *581 sought is extinguished, unless the parties interested consent in the mean time to a partition.

Charles C. Mumford, for complainants. John Erastus Lester, for respondents, Caulkins and wife. Isaac H. Southwick, Jun., for the other respondents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that partition should not be decreed against the respondents’ objections thereto, so long as the mortgage and other debts remain outstanding. Hendry v. Hollingdrake, 16 R. I. 477.

We will overrule the demurrer and allow the cause to stand until the lien for debts upon the estates of which partition is *581 sought is extinguished, unless the parties interested consent in the mean time to a partition.

Charles C. Mumford, for complainants. John Erastus Lester, for respondents, Caulkins and wife. Isaac H. Southwick, Jun., for the other respondents.

Trowbridge v. Caulkins, 23 A. 1102, 17 R.I. 580, 1892 R.I. LEXIS 38 (R.I. 1892).

Pincite

23 A. 1102 (Trowbridge v. Caulkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.