TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Sale of Lands of Steele

In the Matter of the Application for Sale of Lands of Mary E. Steele, an Infant

In re Sale of Lands of Steele, 19 N.J. Eq. 120 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New Jersey Court of Chancery · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 15, 1868
Citations
19 N.J. Eq. 120
Headnotes
1. A life tenant is bound to keep the premises in repair, not excepting dilapidations occasioned by Ordinary wear and tear in the proper use of the premises. 2. The reversionary estate Of an infant will not be sold because there may be a great advantage in the sale to the tenant for life, when the benefit to the infant is doubtful or inappreciable.
Summary
This was an application by the father for the sale of lands of an infant daughter.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Chancellor.

In this case the father has a life estate, as tenant by the Curtesy. The property rents for $50 a year j the taxes are $8, and the property, if sold, will bring $600. The father is thirty years old, and his share of the proceeds would, according to the tables, be seventy-eight per cent., or $468, leaving $132 for the infant. The premises are out of repair, and it would require $250 to put them in repair. The life tenant is bound to keep the premises in as good repair as they were when he took them, not excepting ordinary or natural wear and tear; if a new roof is needed, he is bound to put it on; if paint wears off, he is bound to re-paint. The father has been tenant for eight years, and has suffered this dilapidation. The sale may be a great benefit to the delinquent father.' The benefit to the child is inappreciable. The sale will not be ordered, unless the father agrees to take $200 for his share of the proceeds.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1947: 11958: 11971: 119472026peak 1947 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Flasch143 A.2d 208 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1958)
  2. In re Roth52 A.2d 811 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1947)
  3. Shilowitz v. Shilowitz278 A.2d 517 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Shilowitz v. Shilowitz278 A.2d 517 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971)
  2. In re Flasch143 A.2d 208 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1958)
  3. In re Roth52 A.2d 811 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1947)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list