Wall v. Meilke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Blue Earth county for partition of land. The case was tried before Quinn, J., who made findings of fact, and as conclusions of law found that defendant Mathilde Meilke was the owner in fee of the premises in question and that neither plaintiffs nor the other defendants had any interest therein. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiffs,, and defendants Julius and Frank Heaton, appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
This is an action in partition, brought after the determination of Phelps v. Heaton, 79 Minn. 476, 82 N. W. 990. These plaintiffs, Nellie Heaton Wall and Bertha Maude Heaton, and two of these defendants, Julius and Frank Heaton, were defendants in that case, which was brought against them in 1889, while they were minors, and residents of the state of Wisconsin, for the purpose-of reforming a certain deed described in the complaint therein. This defendant George S. Heaton, and his wife, were the grantors, in that deed, and defendant Wealthy Phelps was grantee. The premises in controversy are…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pitcher v. . HennesseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Craufurd's Adm'r v. Smith's Ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1896
- State v. McCarteySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Eickhoff v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Hayes v. CarrollSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Fritz v. FritzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Weight v. BaileyUtah Supreme Court · 1915
- Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Glaser v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Papke v. PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.