Snyder v. Snyder, 40453.
| Decision Date | 09 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 40453.,40453. |
| Citation | 233 N.W. 498,211 Iowa 445 |
| Parties | SNYDER v. SNYDER ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Chickasaw County; Carl W. Reed, Judge.
Action in partition of 60 acres of land situate in Chickasaw county, Iowa. The trial court decreed that the farm be sold, and appointed appraisers and also a referee with authority to sell it for not less than the appraised value. The defendants appeal.
Affirmed.Geiser, Donohue & Geiser, of New Hampton, for appellee.
Campbell & Campbell, of Charles City, for appellants Dolly Snyder and Herman Snyder.
DE GRAFF, J.
The plaintiff, Kiser Snyder, is the fee-simple title-holder of an undivided one-eighth interest in a certain described 60-acre farm located in Chickasaw county, Iowa. The defendant Dolly Snyder is the owner of an undivided five-eighths interest in said farm. The defendants Henry and Herman Snyder are the owners of an undivided one-eighth interest, respectively, in said farm. These owners of these undivided interests were unable to mutually agree upon a division of the farm in question, and consequently this partition suit was commenced. The defendants appealed from the decree ordering a sale of the farm.
[1][2] The record discloses that the 60 acres is in a farming community and is located about 16 miles from New Hampton, the county seat of Chickasaw county. We deem it unnecessary to dwell on the factual side bearing on the question whether or not the farm can be equitably divided into the requisite number of fractional shares owned by the plaintiff and defendants respectively. The evidence of the defendants shows that, if the farm were divided into seven and one-half-acre tracts, it would greatly depreciate the value of the farm sold as an entire tract. The farm is too remote from any urban population to appeal to purchasers of acreage tracts. It is at once apparent that such a division would greatly depreciate the value of the interests of the respective owners of these undivided fractional shares. It is at once apparent that, if such a division were ordered, the fencing of each separate tract would be necessary, and, if so divided, it would leave the owners with small tracts that would not be suitable for agricultural purposes. The trial court took notice of the location of this parcel of real estate and that it could not be divided into small tracts without entailing a considerable loss to the respective owners.
An action for partition shall be by equitable...
To continue reading
Request your trial