Bell v. Goodnature
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Octave Goodnature, from an order of the District Court of Freeborn County, Farmer, J., made October 6, 1891, refusing him a new trial. Action brought by plaintiff, William Bell, for trespass and cutting trees upon his land by the defendant, who owned adjacent land on the west. The dispute between them was as to the true location of the dividing line.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Octave Goodnature, from an order of the District Court of Freeborn County, Farmer, J., made October 6, 1891, refusing him a new trial. Action brought by plaintiff, William Bell, for trespass and cutting trees upon his land by the defendant, who owned adjacent land on the west. The dispute between them was as to the true location of the dividing line. Plaintiff bought his piece of land of defendant eighteen years before the trial, and he claimed that to induce him to purchase, defendant pointed out the boundary so as to include the trees cut and that he relied thereon, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbtllan, C. J.
It is not assigned as error that the evidence was not' sufficient to sustain the verdict. Only the charge of the court is so assigned.
It appears that, twenty-odd years ago, defendant, owning certain land, caused the same-to be subdivided into lots, and platted upon a survey made by. one Lacy, and the plat to be recorded, and about eighteen years ago he sold one of the lots to plaintiff. There was evidence tending to show that before the sale he pointed out to plaintiff the line between the lot thus sold and the lot next to it on one side, which he continued to own, and that plaintiff was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Knauf & Tesch Co. v. Elkhart Lake Sand & Gravel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah WilcoxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Poksyla v. SundholmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Thompson v. BorgSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- North Star Land Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915