Coles v. Yorks
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from orders of the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, overruling their separate demurrers to the complaint.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The allegations of the complaint, so far as here important, are as follows: On April 24, 1873, Thomas J. Yorks was the owner of a block of land in Stillwater, an incorporated city, then *214and ever since containing more than 5,000 inhabitants. The block was “duly platted, surveyed, and subdivided” into 12 lots, and the plat duly filed and recorded. Before and at the date mentioned, and ever since, said Thomas, being then and ever since the husband of his co-defendant, Sarah, occupied a house in the block “as a dwelling and homestead.” At the date mentioned, said Thomas and Sarah, for the purpose…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wallace v. HarrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Wisconsin v. TorinusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Coles v. YorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Kipp v. BullardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Bolton v. LandersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Colby v. StreetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- William Weisman Holding Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Kelly v. First State Bank of RothsaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Horseth v. FuglesteenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Graham v. National Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.