Gilman v. Van Brunt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs, being tbe owners of certain lots in the city of Duluth, brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county to have removed a cloud upon their title, the alleged cloud being, as appeared from the pleadings and on the trial, certain assignments from the state to defendant of all its right, title and interest to the lots in question acquired under tax judgments -entered January 1, 1875, and sales thereunder made February 27, 1875, for taxes delinquent…
Read the full summary
Plaintiffs, being tbe owners of certain lots in the city of Duluth, brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county to have removed a cloud upon their title, the alleged cloud being, as appeared from the pleadings and on the trial, certain assignments from the state to defendant of all its right, title and interest to the lots in question acquired under tax judgments -entered January 1, 1875, and sales thereunder made February 27, 1875, for taxes delinquent for 1872, and under a tax judgment entered September 16, 1875, and sale thereunder made October 31, 1875. ' The action was…
1Opinion of the CourtBeery, J.
This is an action for the removal of an alleged cloud upon plaintiffs’ title to certain town lots. To maintain this action ilie cloud alleged must be prima facie substantial. In other words, ilie facts which are said to constitute the cloud must be such as apparently confer some right, title, or interest in the property. If they are not such per se, but require to give them this apparent effect the hacking of extrinsic facts which have no real or apparent existence, I hen there is no cloud. Or, as it may be otherwise stated, there is no occasion to go into a court of equity in order to have…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Baldwin v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Scott v. . OnderdonkNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Barton v. DrakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Marsh v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Walton v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hall v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Morin v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Maloney v. FinneganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Owen v. RuthruffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900