B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Christianson, Justice.
This is an action to determine adverse claims to a certain vacant, unenclosed lot in the city of Hastings. Plaintiff alleges it is the owner in fee and that the lot is vacant and unoccupied. Defendant denies that plaintiff is the owner in fee, alleges that it is the owner in fee, and affirmatively asks that it be adjudged the owner thereof, free from any claim of the plaintiff. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
Plaintiff, B. W. & Leo Harris Company, claims title to the W 1/3 of block 16…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. TimmensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Krueger v. MarketSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Farmers State Bank v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Roussain v. NortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Olson v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
3Cited by19 opinions
- Wichelman v. MessnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Roche v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Carlton v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. TapperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- Township of Sterling v. GriffinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.