Cain v. Highland Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action of ejectment in the district court for St. Louis county. The case was tried before Eesler, J., who denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in its favor, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. From an order granting defendant Highland Company’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiffs appealed.
1Per curiam 1
Action in ejectment. Verdict for the plaintiffs. Judgment notwithstanding directed for the defendant company. The plaintiffs appeal.
The title of the plaintiffs rests upon a claim of adverse possession. The defendant has the fee title unless it has been divested by adverse possession. In 1891 the plaintiff Mary Cain owned a lot on what is known as Duluth Heights in the city of Duluth. This lot was something like four blocks back of the head of the Duluth incline railroad and about a *431mile from the business center of Dnlnth. All the land about was platted. Mrs. Cain’s lot faced Thirteenth…
Also in this document: Per curiam 2.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carpenter v. ColesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Cool v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Rupley v. FraserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Mattson v. WarnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
3Cited by6 opinions
- Village of Newport v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Naporra v. WeckwerthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Bjerketvedt v. JacobsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Stevens v. VeldeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Voegele v. MahoneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.