Grady v. Cannon

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtPINNEY
Citation66 N.W. 808,92 Wis. 666
Decision Date27 March 1896
PartiesGRADY ET AL. v. CANNON ET AL.

92 Wis. 666
66 N.W. 808

GRADY ET AL.
v.
CANNON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 27, 1896.


Appeal from circuit court, Waupaca county; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Action by Michael J. Grady and another against James Cannon and others. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

The plaintiffs, Michael Grady and Mary Royal, brought this action against the defendants, James Cannon, Albert E. Dedolph, John Moloso, George Hazer (administrator of the estate of Isaac Brown, deceased), and Mattie L. Cottrell and Edmund H. Gibson (as executors of the will of Horton Cottrell, deceased), for the partition of lot 9 in block 6, and lot 3 in block 14, in Millerd & Taft's plat of the city of New London, Waupaca county, of which premises Michael Grady died seised, September 8, 1860, leaving a widow, Hannah Grady, surviving, who died in 1891, and eight brothers and sisters surviving, as his heirs at law, one of whom, John Grady, died in 1871, intestate, leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs at law; and it seems clear that the plaintiffs succeeded to an undivided one-eighth interest, at least, as his heirs, which descended to their father from the said Michael Grady, in 1860. The statements of the complaint as to the conveyances and the descent of their interests in the premises are extremely uncertain, obscure, and confusing. It is alleged, however, as a matter of fact: That the parties to the action have the following undivided estates in the premises: (1) The plaintiff Michael J. Grady, one undivided one-seventh; (2) the plaintiff Mary Royal, one undivided one-seventh; (3) the defendant James Cannon, an undivided five-sevenths of the west half of lot 9; (4) the defendant Albert E. Dedolph, an undivided five-sevenths of the east half of lot 9; (5) the defendant John Moloso, an undivided five-sevenths of lot 3. And that a mortgage was given by the latter, August 6, 1892, to Isaac Brown, now deceased, on lot 3, for the sum of $175, now held by the defendant George Hazer, as administrator of the estate of the said Brown. That the defendant Albert E. Dedolph executed a mortgage on the east half of lot 9, but to whom is not stated, which was afterwards assigned to the defendants Mattie L. Cottrell and Edmund H. Gibson, as executors of the last will of Horton Cottrell, deceased. The plaintiffs prayed judgment for partition according to the rights of all the parties; and that the interest of the plaintiffs be set off freed from the lien of said mortgages; and that, if partition could not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...482, 9 N. W. 468;Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. 683;Ellis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N. W. 808;Draper v. Brown, 115 Wis. 361, 91 N. W. 1001;Douglas Co. v. Walbridge, 38 Wis. 179;Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U.......
  • Barnes v. Swedish American Nat. Bank of Rockford, No. 24900.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 22, 1939
    ...1159;Harlan v. Langham, 69 Pa. 235, 236;Parker v. Harrison, 63 Miss. 225;Garret v. Weinberg, 43 S.C. 36, 20 S.E. 756;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N.W. 808; Bigelow v. Littlefield, 52 Me. 24, 83 Am.Dec. 484; Barnes v. Lynch, 151 Mass. 510, 24 N.E. 783,21 Am.St.Rep. 470. This exception is......
  • Green v. Gremaux, No. 97-058
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • October 7, 1997
    ...v. Santee River Cypress Lumber Co. (1905), 73 S.C. 31, 52 S.E. 733; Hazen v. Webb (1902), 65 Kan. 38, 68 P. 1096; Grady v. Cannon (1896), 92 Wis. 666, 66 N.W. 808; Baird v. Jackson (1881), 98 Ill. 78. None of the cited authority persuades this Court to hold, as a matter of law, that all tra......
  • Draper v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 21, 1902
    ...Blake v. Van Tilborg, 21 Wis. 672;Board v. Walbridge, 38 Wis. 179;Ellis v. Railroad Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N. W. 808. In Ellis v. Railroad Co., the action was to quiet title. The railroad company claimed all the land, and the other defendants separat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...482, 9 N. W. 468;Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. 683;Ellis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N. W. 808;Draper v. Brown, 115 Wis. 361, 91 N. W. 1001;Douglas Co. v. Walbridge, 38 Wis. 179;Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U.......
  • Barnes v. Swedish American Nat. Bank of Rockford, No. 24900.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 22, 1939
    ...1159;Harlan v. Langham, 69 Pa. 235, 236;Parker v. Harrison, 63 Miss. 225;Garret v. Weinberg, 43 S.C. 36, 20 S.E. 756;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N.W. 808; Bigelow v. Littlefield, 52 Me. 24, 83 Am.Dec. 484; Barnes v. Lynch, 151 Mass. 510, 24 N.E. 783,21 Am.St.Rep. 470. This exception is......
  • Green v. Gremaux, No. 97-058
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • October 7, 1997
    ...v. Santee River Cypress Lumber Co. (1905), 73 S.C. 31, 52 S.E. 733; Hazen v. Webb (1902), 65 Kan. 38, 68 P. 1096; Grady v. Cannon (1896), 92 Wis. 666, 66 N.W. 808; Baird v. Jackson (1881), 98 Ill. 78. None of the cited authority persuades this Court to hold, as a matter of law, that all tra......
  • Draper v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 21, 1902
    ...Blake v. Van Tilborg, 21 Wis. 672;Board v. Walbridge, 38 Wis. 179;Ellis v. Railroad Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N. W. 808. In Ellis v. Railroad Co., the action was to quiet title. The railroad company claimed all the land, and the other defendants separat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT