Stannard v. Sperry

• Decision Date: 08 January 1889
• Citation: 56 Conn. 541,16 A. 261
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STANNARD v. SPERRY.

16 A. 261

56 Conn. 541

STANNARD

v. SPERRY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 8, 1889.

Appeal from superior court, Middlesex county.

Suit for partition, brought by George Stannard, Jr., against Charles Sperry. The court accepted the report of a committee, and confirmed the partition. Defendant appeals.

L. Harrison, for appellant. W. F. Wilcox, for appellee.

PARDEE, J. Complaint by tenant in common for partition. In 1865, George Stannard deeded to George Stannard, Jr., plaintiff, an undivided half of a "barn-lot," so called, being parcel of his homestead; also an undesignated, unlocated half acre at the upper barn, parcel of his homestead; also an undivided half of each of two barns on his homestead. With the exception of these two undivided portions of his homestead, he granted the remainder to his grandson Charles Sperry, the defendant, together with an undivided half of each of the two barns. George Stannard, Jr., brought his complaint to the superior court, asking for partition. It was referred to a committee. The committee made and reported to the superior court a partition, setting to the defendant the whole of the upper barn; also locating by metes and bounds, and setting to him, the undivided half acre there, which was deeded to the plaintiff; and to the plaintiff the whole of the lower barn, with one-half of the barn-lot, by metes and bounds. The defendant remonstrated against the acceptance of the report of the committee, for these reasons, viz.: First. Said committee erred in making said partition, viz., in setting and aparting to said Charles Sperry the one-half acre of land at the upper barn, because said Charles Sperry had no interest in said one-half acre, and never had or possessed an interest in the same. Second. Said committee erred in making said partition, viz., in setting and aparting to said Charles Sperry the one-half acre of land at the upper barn, because in so doing said committee considered that said Sperry was tenant in common with said Stannard in said one-half acre, whereas the deeds of George Stannard to said George Stannard, Jr., and Charles Sperry, show that said Sperry was not a co-tenant in said one-half acre with said Stannard. Third. Said committee erred in aparting said one-half acre to said Charles Sperry, because said committee divested said George Stannard of his title to the same; he being the sole owner of the same. Fourth. Said committee erred in aparting to said Sperry the upper barn and to said Stannard the lower barn, because he divested each of a title in each barn, conveyed to each by a deed of gift. Fifth. Because said committee did not apart to each the shares belonging to each in said barns, and said lower barn-lot, as expressed in the deeds conveying the same to them. Sixth. Because said committee, in aparting said barns and barn-lot, did not apart them equally, but the value of that...