Spear v. Noonan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to quiet' title to a certain city lot. The answer alleged that the notice of expiration of redemption mentioned in the complaint and in the opinion was not substantially in the form required by the laws of the state and was void. The case was tried before Dickinson,
1Opinion of the CourtSdHALLER, J.
Action to quiet title under 6. S. 1913, § 2168. Defendant is the owner in fee, unless his title is-divested by certain tax proceedings under which plaintiff claims. The defendant had judgment. Plaintiff appeals.
The only question arising on this appeal is as to the validity of the notice of expiration of redemption. The district court held it void.
The notice which adheres strictly to the form provided in R. L. 1905, § 956 (G. S. 1913, § 2148), reads as follows:
*333“Notice of Expiration of Redemption No. B. 1401.
“Office of the County Auditor, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota.
“To C. H. and S.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. Village of AuroraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Glaze v. StrykerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Luck Land Co. v. DixonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916