O'Mulcahy v. Florer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Eice county, to recover possession of 160 acres of land in that county, for the rents and profits of the same, and for damages done by defendant to the said property.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Eice county, to recover possession of 160 acres of land in that county, for the rents and profits of the same, and for damages done by defendant to the said property. Defendant, answering, denies plaintiff’s ownership, and sets up title under a tax deed from the state on a sale for taxes of 1861, and also under a sale of the premises in 1875 for the tax of 1874, accompanied with peaceable possession since 1873; and, as a counterclaim, defendant sets up improvements made by him on the land in question since 1873, to the value of…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
As the record does not show any right in plaintiff to recover at all, either the possession of the land or for damages done to it, if defendant’s claim that the right of- action, to avoid the sale in 1875 was barred before the action was commenced be well founded, we will consider that question first.
That sale was had under the statute of 1875. Section 30, chapter 5, General Laws of that year, provides: “No sale shall be set aside or held invalid unless the party objecting to the same shall bring his action to set aside such certificate, or to test the validity of such sale, within five years…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Madland v. BenlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
3Cited by8 opinions
- Perkins v. TrinkaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Miesen v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Wheeler v. MerrimanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Bower v. O'DonnallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Gilfillan v. ChattertonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.