Murphy v. Borgen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In an application to register title to certain land a decree of registration was entered. Thereafter defendant Borgen, setting up a written lease of the premises, obtained permission to file his answer. From an order, Cant, J., granting defendant BorgeNs motion to review the decree of registration for the purpose of determining his rights, Mamie Murphy-appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
The trial court, in a proceeding to register title to land under the Torrens Act, vacated the decree of registration and permitted a defendant in default to answer. The defendant had been served with the summons. *376The application was made promptly and within 28 days after the decree was entered and the proposed answer stated a good defense. The showing made was snch as to constitute mistake or excusable neglect, sufficient in an ordinary action to warrant the court in vacating a judgment and granting leave to answer. The court did not find fraud and there was no evidence to sustain such a…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Moore v. HenricksenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- United States v. RyanDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1954
- In Re the Brainerd National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- C. S. McCrossan, Inc. v. Builders Finance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Park Elm Homeowner's Ass'n v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.