Tuman v. Pillsbury
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of fbe district court for the counties of Crow Wing and Cass, in favor of defendants, entered in pursuance of the findings and order of Holland, J.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The land in controversy was entered September, 1874, in the name of plaintiff, under the act of congress, as a “soldier’s additional homestead.” The defendants claim title through a conveyance from plaintiff and wife executed by one Newton as their attorney. The authority under which Newton assumed to convey was a power of attorney executed by plaintiff and wife in March, 1874, authorizing him “to enter into and upon and take possession of any and all pieces and parcels of land * * * in the state of Minnesota, and in any state or territory of the United States, which we now own, or which we…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gilbert v. HowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Webster v. LutherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Cousino v. Western Shore Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
- Pardoe v. MerrittSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Snell v. WeyerhauserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Roy v. Harrison Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910