Hoyt & Ames v. Sanford
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This was an Appeal from a judgment in the District Court of Ramsey County. The complaint sets forth that on the 7th day of May, 1852, one Lyman Dayton leased to Hoyt & Ames, for the term of five years, certain lands therein described, “ for the purpose of booming, hauling, rafting, securing and keeping logs and lumber, and removing the same therefrom,” &c. and reserving the right to the lessor to “ fill up and raise said land, for building purposes and other improvements.”
Read the full summary
This was an Appeal from a judgment in the District Court of Ramsey County. The complaint sets forth that on the 7th day of May, 1852, one Lyman Dayton leased to Hoyt & Ames, for the term of five years, certain lands therein described, “ for the purpose of booming, hauling, rafting, securing and keeping logs and lumber, and removing the same therefrom,” &c. and reserving the right to the lessor to “ fill up and raise said land, for building purposes and other improvements.” That said Dayton was, at the date of said lease, the owner of said land, and that the Plaintiffs took possession thereof…
1Opinion of the Court
*212The action was originally commenced before Truman M. Smith, Esq. a Justice of the Peace of Kamsey County, by complaint filed December 26th, 1853.
The Defendant demurred to the complaint, because
The Complaint recites a lease containing a reservation to the lessor of certain rights and privileges therein recited, and because the acts of the Defendant complained of are within the said reservation, and not inconsistent therewith: and because it does not appear that the Defendant is not the grantee of said Dayton, the Plaintiffs’ lessor.
And because it does not appear that the acts of the Defendant…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tierney v. DodgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864