Sanborn v. Van Duyne
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action of ejectment and for equitable relief in the district court for Namsey county. The case was tried before Bunn, J., who found in favor of defendant. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings, plaintiffs appealed. The city never acquired under this deed, and never had the exclusive right to the possession and use of this property as against the appellants, who are the owners of the fee.
Read the full summary
Action of ejectment and for equitable relief in the district court for Namsey county. The case was tried before Bunn, J., who found in favor of defendant. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings, plaintiffs appealed. The city never acquired under this deed, and never had the exclusive right to the possession and use of this property as against the appellants, who are the owners of the fee. The city has simply an easement or right to use the lots for the purpose of a public levee. That is a privilege distinct from the ownership of the soil, and it is not a tenancy. The appellants, as…
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, J.2
Action to recover the possession of certain real property and for equitable relief, in which defendant had judgment, and plaintiffs appealed.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiffs were, on June 25, 1883, the owners in fee of the land in controversy, viz., lots 1 and 2, block 183, Robertson’s addition to West St. Paul, near the west bank of the Mississippi river; and on that day, for a valuable consideration to them paid, conveyed to the city of St. Paul a “perpetual easement for the purpose of a public levee over and upon” the same. The deed was duly recorded. The trial court found…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Williams v. . the New-York Central Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Peck v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1814
- Warren v. MayorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- In re JohnNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Pence v. ArbuckleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Salisbury Land & Improvement Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- PORT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ST. PAUL v. FisherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Lawton v. JoestingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. District Court of Fourth Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- McCuen v. McCarvelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.