Keith v. Hayden
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for'Millo Lacs county to recover damages for alleged trespasses by defendants on certain described pine lands stated to be owned in fee by plaintiffs, and for an injunction to restrain defendants from continuing such trespasses. The defendants justified under a contract with one D. D. Moore, whom they alleged to be owner in fee of the lands in question.
Read the full summary
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for'Millo Lacs county to recover damages for alleged trespasses by defendants on certain described pine lands stated to be owned in fee by plaintiffs, and for an injunction to restrain defendants from continuing such trespasses. The defendants justified under a contract with one D. D. Moore, whom they alleged to be owner in fee of the lands in question. The action was tried before McKelvy, L, upon whose findings a judgment was entered for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
To maintain this action, the plaintiffs rely upon two tax titles, the validity of which the defendants deny. One of these titles is based upon a judgment rendered under the provisions of the general tax law found in Laws 1874, c. 1. This judgment is entered in the “real estate tax-judgment, book,” provided for by law, the left-hand page of the book being divided into columns, with heads and entries thereunder,, as follows:
*213Names of owners Subdivision of section, lot or block. Section or lot. Township or block. Han are. Number of acres. Years taxes due.
D. D. Moore S.2 N. E.4 & N. W.4 S. B.4 32…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Power v. BowdleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Auditor General v. SparrowMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Power v. LarabeeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Washington Timber & Loan Co. v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1904
- Cooper v. LeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.