Hanneman v. Richter

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Real Estate of Enoch M. Smith, Deceased

    33 Del. Ch. 350 (Del. Orph. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    Whitehead v. Whitehead, 23 Del. Ch. 436, 181 A. 684; First National Bank of Frankfort v. Andrews, 26 Del. Ch. 344, 28 A.2d 676; In re Andrews, 3 Terry 376, 34 A.2d 700; In re Burton's Estate, 30 Del. Ch. 615, 59 A.2d 278; In Re Cochran's Estate, 31 Del. Ch. 545, 66 A.2d 497. Conversely, when the subject matter of the controversy does not arise out of the property partitioned, an Orphans' Court should refuse to assume jurisdiction. This principle is best exemplified by the statement of the New Jersey court in Hanneman v. Richter, 63 N.J. Eq. 753, 53 A. 177, 178, in denying incidental relief prayed for in a partition suit: "none of them have any connection whatever with the land of which partition is sought in this suit, or the rents and profits thereof.

  2. Lohmann v. Lohmann

    50 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1958)   Cited 22 times
    Finding that a trial court's factual determinations should not be lightly disturbed on appeal

    That the court intended no such far-reaching effect of its opinion, as is advocated in the matter sub judice, is substantiated by an examination of the cases there cited. In Hanneman v. Richter, 63 N.J. Eq. 753 ( Ch. 1902), the defendant had collected rents under claim of the entire fee title and denied, in the proceedings, that plaintiffs were co-tenants. In Cole v. Cole, 69 N.J. Eq. 3 ( Ch. 1905), the defendant was found to have been in exclusive possession of the premises.

  3. Robertson v. Biernacka

    9 N.J. Super. 591 (Ch. Div. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    So far as the rents are concerned, the accounting of them is incidental to the primary relief of partition. Izard v. Bodine, 11 N.J. Eq. 403 ( Ch. 1857); Keeney v. Henning, 58 N.J. Eq. 74 ( Ch. 1899); Hanneman v. Richter, 63 N.J. Eq. 753 ( Ch. 1902); Cole v. Cole, 69 N.J. Eq. 3 ( Ch. 1905); Creech v. McVaugh, 140 N.J. Eq. 272 ( Ch. 1947). As to those items which do not constitute rents collected by the executrix, this court may well assume jurisdiction to compel an accounting.

  4. Holton v. Holton

    72 N.J. Eq. 312 (Ch. Div. 1906)   Cited 3 times

    Under rule 213 this motion will be treated as essentially a demurrer to the bill. Ireland v. Kelly, 60 N. J. Eq. 308, 310, 47 Atl. 51; Stevenson v. Morgan, 63 N. J. Eq. 707, 53 Atl. 78; Hanneman v. Richter, 63 N. J. Eq. 753, 755, 53 Atl. 177. The allegations of the bill are clearly insufficient to establish a resulting trust When a deed of conveyance is executed and delivered, the intention that the grantee is not to enjoy the beneficial estate but that a trust is to result must appear expressly or by implication from the terms of the deed, and no extrinsic evidence of the grantors' intention is admissible unless fraud or mistakeis averred.

  5. Cole v. Cole

    69 N.J. Eq. 3 (Ch. Div. 1905)   Cited 3 times
    In Cole v. Cole, 69 N.J. Eq. 3 (Ch. 1905), the defendant was found to have been in exclusive possession of the premises.

    When a partition is sought, one of the tenants in common who has been in exclusive possession, may be required to account for the rents and profits, in the same proceedings. Keeney v. Henning, 58 N. J. Eq. 74, 42 Atl. 807; Hanneman v. Richter, 63 N. J. Eq. 753, 53 Atl. 177. It is next urged that the demurrants cannot be called to account of the estate of Elizabeth Cole, or for any liability of Henry V. Cole, for said estate, and that no lien can be imposed on the interest in the land belonging to Jennie A. McGinley for any distributive share of said estate to which complainant may be entitled.

  6. Bd. of Home Missions v. Davis

    55 A. 466 (Ch. Div. 1903)   Cited 2 times

    Such a motion takes the place of exceptions to the answer. Hanneman v. Richter, 63 N. J. Eq. 755, 53 Atl. 177. A previous motion of identical character was made and denied.