Brown v. Brackett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Proceeding in the municipal court of Minneapolis, under Gen. St. c. 84, § 11, to recover possession of certain premises-in that city. The complaint (which was filed May 17, 1879,} alleges that on April 1, 1874, by indenture of lease, which was duly recorded, one Holmes demised the premises described therein to one Hanscom, for the term of 15 years, at the yearly rent of $3,000, payable quarterly in advance.
Read the full summary
Proceeding in the municipal court of Minneapolis, under Gen. St. c. 84, § 11, to recover possession of certain premises-in that city. The complaint (which was filed May 17, 1879,} alleges that on April 1, 1874, by indenture of lease, which was duly recorded, one Holmes demised the premises described therein to one Hanscom, for the term of 15 years, at the yearly rent of $3,000, payable quarterly in advance. That Hanscom entered, and occupied the premises under the lease until April 8, 1876, when, by written lease duly executed and recorded, he sublet them to the defendant for the term of five…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
Gen. St. 1878, c. 84, § 12, entitled “Forcible Entries and Unlawful Detainers,”reads: “No restitution shall be made, under the provisions of this chapter, of any lands or tenements of which the party complained of, or his ancestors, or those under whom he holds the premises, have *293been in the quiet possession for three years next before the entering of the complaint, unless his estate therein is ended.”
It is contended by the plaintiffs that the quiet possession for three years, here referred to, means a possession adverse to the title of the party seeking restitution, and that, consequently,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Alworth v. GordonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Suchaneck v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Priordale Mall Investors v. FarringtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Priordale Mall Investors v. FarringtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986