Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1892

Trowbridge v. Caulkins

Trowbridge v. Caulkins
Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Decided January 23, 1892 · PER CURIAM.
23 A. 1102; 17 R.I. 580; 1892 R.I. LEXIS 38

Trowbridge v. Caulkins

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.