Goodnow v. Empire Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Winona county, Start, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint, the substance of which is stated in the opinion. Mere acquiescence, short of the statutory period of limitations, after the removal of the disability, never operates as a confirmation of an infant’s deed. This is as firmly settled as adjudications can settle any proposition.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Winona county, Start, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint, the substance of which is stated in the opinion. Mere acquiescence, short of the statutory period of limitations, after the removal of the disability, never operates as a confirmation of an infant’s deed. This is as firmly settled as adjudications can settle any proposition. Elizabeth M. Hamilton, the mother of plaintiffs, lived only four or five years after majority, and was under the disability of coverture during that time, so that neither silent…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
November 27, 1857, Elizabeth M. Hamilton, then a married woman and owner of certain real estate in the city •of Winona, conveyed the same, her husband joining in the deed, to the defendant Huff, under whom the other defendant claims: Mrs. Hamilton was born April 21, 1842. She died December 16, 1867, ■and her husband died November 10, 1874. Plaintiffs are their children, Mary, born March 31, 1859, and Eugenia, January 29, 1863. They bring the action to avoid the conveyance, because of the minority of Elizabeth M. Hamilton when she executed it. Plaintiffs gave notice to the lumber company of…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Kline v. BeebeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Irvine v. IrvineSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- McMurray v. . McMurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Horton v. MaffittSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Bigelow v. KinneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- O'Brien v. GaslinNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
- Houlton v. ManteuffelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Hurley v. Southern California Edison Co., LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Shepherd v. ShepherdIllinois Supreme Court · 1951
- Eisenmenger v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.