Hooper v. Henry
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In each of these four cases the defendant appeals from a ju mnt of the district court for Scott county, where the actions were ti\ y Wilkin, I., acting for the judge of the 8th district.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
These are actions under the statute to determine •adverse claims to real estate. They are so connected in the facts that they may be disposed of in one opinion. In the Hooper cases, the •complaints allege plaintiff’s ownership, and that he is in possession; in the Hinman cases, plaintiff’s ownership, and that the land is vacant •and unoccupied. Each answer admits that defendant claims an estate or interest in the land, denies each and every other allegation in the *265'Complaint, alleges that the defendant is the owner in fee of an undivided estate' in the land, and prays that plaintiff’s claim…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Power v. BowdleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Bates v. DrakeWashington Supreme Court · 1902
- Mitchell v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Windom v. SchuppelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Burke v. LacockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.