¶1decided, that the report should be signed by all the commissioners; or if not signed and acknowledged by all, it should state the reasons for the omission. And that it ought to appear from such report that all the commissioners met together and consulted upon the matter of the partition; where a sufficient reason is given for the report being signed by a part only. He also decided that where a share of premises partitioned is set off to a lunatic, or to an habitual drunkard, who has a committee appointed by this court, the title is vested in the lunatic, or drunkard, and not in his committee. (See 2 R. S. 246, § 28, 29, 31, 32.)
1 Barb. Ch. 73
Underhill v. Jackson
Decided August 28, 1845
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1845-08-28
This was a partition suit, and was heard on the report of the commissioners who had been appointed to make partition. The report was signed by only a part of the commissioners; and no reason was given for the omission of the others to join in signing and acknowledging it. Nor did it appear from the report that all the commissioners met together and consulted upon the matter of the partition.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1895
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1845-08-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →