Atwater v. Spalding
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action of ejectment in the district court for Hennepin county. From an order, Elliott, J., overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
In Curtiss v. Livingston, 36 Minn. 380, 31 N. W. 357, it was said, obiter, that “in ejectment it is sufficient for plaintiff to allege that *102he is the owner and entitled to the possession, and that the land is wrongfully withheld, without alleging in detail the particular facts on which his claim of title is based.” This is a correct statement of the rule which should prevail whenever the statute requires, as it does in this jurisdiction, that all complaints shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, without unnecessary repetition. That it would…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Burt v. BowlesIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Garwood v. HastingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Miller v. AdamsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Adamson v. WigginsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Johnson v. CrookshanksOregon Supreme Court · 1891
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Burdett v. BurdettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Beck v. Council of City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Trovatten v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Confidential Loan & Mortgage Co. v. HardgroveWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- Berndt v. BerndtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.