70 N.J. Eq. 418 | New York Court of Chancery | 1906
In this case the proofs satisfy me:
First. That, the premises described in the bill of complaint are so situated and of such character that they cannot be divided among the owners thereof, according to their several shares, without great prejudice to their interests resulting from such division, and that for this reason the property must be sold and the proceeds divided among the several owners according to their respective interests.
Third. That it has not been shown that the complainants received any rents or profits from the letting of the premises in question, and that it does not appear that they excluded their co-tenants from the enjoyment of the premises in common with themselves, the premises consisting of a small farm, which the complainants occupied and conducted at their own expense; nor is there any showing that in so doing they actually made a profit, and that therefore the complainants. should not be required to account for rents or profits, &e., as prayed in the cross-bill; that there is no showing of damage done to the premises by complainants, as alleged in the cross-bill, and that such unliquidated claims are not here cognizable.
Fourth. That the proofs show that the original complainants or their grantees are seized of and entitled to an equal undivided one-third part of the premises; ’ that the defendant Ella' Etta Smith is seized of and entitled to another equal undivided third part of said premises, and that George Ii. Weaver and Josephine Maud Lake are each seized of and entitled to an equal undivided one-sixth part of the same.
A decree will be advised according to these conclusions.