Hyde v. Bishop Iron Company
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. On April 3, 1895, the Bishop Iron Company, one of the defendants in error, filed in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of Minnesota, in' and for the county of St. Louis, its complaint in ejectment, alleging that it was the absolute owner in fee simple and entitled to the immediate possession of the undivided of the following described land, situate in the county of St. Louis, to wit: The N.E. \ of the…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. On April 3, 1895, the Bishop Iron Company, one of the defendants in error, filed in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of Minnesota, in' and for the county of St. Louis, its complaint in ejectment, alleging that it was the absolute owner in fee simple and entitled to the immediate possession of the undivided of the following described land, situate in the county of St. Louis, to wit: The N.E. \ of the 8.W. £ of section '30, township 63 north, range 11 west of the fourth principal meridian, and that it was the lessee of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brewer
The testimony is not preserved in the record and no question can arise upon the findings of fact, for they are simply to the effect that the plaintiff had the legal title to an undivided and the leasehold right from the legal holders of the remaining Jf, and that the defendant was in possession without any color of title or right to the lands, so that the only questions which can be considered áre those which arise upon the demurrers to the amended cross petition.
Upon the facts disclosed in that cross petition we remark that as the contest in reference to this tract was pending before the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kendall v. BunnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Midway Co. v. EatonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- United States v. Home Coal & Coke Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912