Upton v. Merriman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal, reported in 116 Minn. 358, 133 N. W. 977, judgment was entered as stated in the opinion (page 160, infra). Plaintiff then demanded a second trial of the action, which was denied. Defendants moved to strike the demand for a second trial from the files and the motions were granted, Waite, J. From the order granting the motions, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
The real estate which gives rise to this controversy was owned by. Anna M. Upton in her lifetime, and was occupied by herself and her husband, Charles H'. Upton, as their homestead. She died intestate in 1888, and was survived by her husband and by four sons and one daughter. . The daughter is the defendant Mabel B. Merriman. Prior to the death of Mrs. Upton, she and her husband had given a mortgage upon the homestead which was foreclosed after her decease. The title acquired under the foreclosure sale was purchased by and conveyed to Charles H. Upton. Thereafter, and in 1894,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Tidd v. RinesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Hatch v. CoddingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Upton v. MerrimanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Norton v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Wightman v. Doe ex dem. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 1852
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Oehler v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Viiliainen v. American Finnish Workers SocietySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Mueller v. MuellerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Mortimer v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1943