Slocum v. McLaren
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal (106 Minn. 386) which affirmed the judgment of the district court for Swift county in favor of the defendant, plaintiffs moved to vacate the judgment and for a new trial on the ground of inadvertence and mistake and newly discovered evidence and surprise and error of law applicable to the case.
Read the full summary
After the former appeal (106 Minn. 386) which affirmed the judgment of the district court for Swift county in favor of the defendant, plaintiffs moved to vacate the judgment and for a new trial on the ground of inadvertence and mistake and newly discovered evidence and surprise and error of law applicable to the case. The affidavit in support of the motion, in addition to stating what appears in the second paragraph of the opinion alleged that the action was tried at the November, 1907, term of court, that the, findings were filed in March, 1908, that the certificate of sale, dated April 24,…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
This action was brought to .quiet title to a tract of land in Swift county, of which plaintiffs were the holders of the record title. Defendant relied in defense upon a tax title, and the validity thereof was the principal question litigated on the trial. The court below held the tax title .valid, and ordered the entry of judgment to the effect that defendant was the owner of the land and that plaintiffs had no title or interest therein. Judgment was entered accordingly, and plaintiffs appealed. It was affirmed by this court in Slocum v. McLaren, 106 Minn. 386, 119 N. W. 406. Subsequently,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. National Bond & Security Co. v. KrahmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Gray v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Slocum v. McLarenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Brodie v. KrahmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910