Jenson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Fillmore county, Farmer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff. upon the point that the contract to convey was delivered, cited 3 Washb. Beal Prop. 294; 20 Cent. Law Jour. 44, note 6; Hatch v. Hashins, 17 Me. 391; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 John.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Fillmore county, Farmer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff. upon the point that the contract to convey was delivered, cited 3 Washb. Beal Prop. 294; 20 Cent. Law Jour. 44, note 6; Hatch v. Hashins, 17 Me. 391; Souverbye v. Arden, 1 John. Ch. 240; Stevens v. Hatch, 6 Minn. 19, (64;) Thompson v. Easton, 31 Minn. 99; Schmitt v. Schmitt, 31 Minn. 106; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271; Tatge v. Tatge, 34 Minn. 272; Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 276; Reedy. Douthit, 62 111. 348; Timison y. Cham-hlin, 88 111.…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
The action is to recover a strip of land 200 feet wide, across plaintiff’s farm, in the county of Houston, which strip is in the possession of defendant, and used by it as its right of way. The defendant justifies its possession under a contract by one Stephenson, through whom plaintiff claims title, to convey to its predecessor, through whom it derives title, the strip in question, executed prior to the conveyance to plaintiff. The case made on the trial was such that if this contract was delivered to defendant’s • predecessor, the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company, then the defendant…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ward v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917