Skip to main content
· 10/29/1894

Greeley v. Lowe

Citations

  • 155 U.S. 58
  • 15 S. Ct. 24
  • 39 L. Ed. 69
  • 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2249

Syllabus

<p>A suit in equity for the partition of land, wherein the plaintiff avers that he is seized as tenant in common of an estate in' fee simple, and is in actual possession of the land described, and, after setting forth the interests of the other tenants in common, and alleging that no remedy at law exists to enable him to obtain his share of said lands in kind, or of the proceeds if sold, and that he is wholly without remedy except in chancery, prays for the partition of the land, and the segregation of his own share from that of the others, and incidentally that certain deeds may be construed and, if invalid, may be cancelled, and that he may recover his advances for taxes and expenses, is. clearly a bill to enforce a claim and settle the title to real estate; and as such is a suit covered by § 8 of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 4-70, 472, of which the Circuit Court of the district where the land lies may properly assume jurisdiction.</p> <p>The questions that, the title of some of the parties to the land being in dispute, such titles must be settled before partition could be made; that the interests of several of the defendants were adverse to each other; and that as some of these defendants were citizens of the same State, it would raise controversies beyond the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to decide, not having been certified to this couit, are not passed uport.</p> <p>Where the laws of a State give a remedy in equity, that remedy will be enforced in Federal courts in the State, if it does not infringe upon the constitutional right of the parties to a trial by jury.</p> <p>The objection that A. was alleged in the bill to be a resident and citizen of the District of Columbia was met by an amended allegation that A. was “ a citizen of South Carolina, now residing in Washington city, District of Columbia; ” and while this allegation was traversed, it must, for the purpose of this hearing, be taken as true.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • bill for partition of land

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Fuller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.