Kipp v. Collins
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Ejectment. Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the district court for Anoka county, where the action was tried by Koon, J., without a jury.
Read the full summary
Ejectment. Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the district court for Anoka county, where the action was tried by Koon, J., without a jury. Defendant’s title was under a judgment and sale, in 1875, for taxes for the year 1874. The tax judgment was in the form prescribed by Laws 1874, c. 1, § 116, excepting that the following words, found in that form after the words “and no answer having been filed,” were omitted therefrom, viz., “by any person, company or corporation, to-the taxes upon any of the pieces or parcels of land hereinafter described, and more than twenty days having elapsed…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
The statute under which this tax sale was had prescribes (Laws 1874, c. 1, § 116,) that the judgment “shall be substantially in the following form.” Then follows the form. The judgment need not follow the form literally. If it contain the substance, it is enough. It is not every recital in the form that is of substance to the judgment — that is, essential to its validity. There are certain recitals of fact in the form, the falseness of which, inserted in the judgment, will not affect its validity. The form given commences with the title of the proceeding; then follows a recital of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- American Emigrant Co. v. FullerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1891
- Godfrey v. ValentineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Hersey v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Gilfillan v. HobartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Cassidy v. SousterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.