Baumgartner v. Corliss
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Wilkin county to recover $600,, balance alleged to 'be due upon a certain contract, and for a deed conveying to plaintiff title to the premises mentioned in the contract.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Wilkin county to recover $600,, balance alleged to 'be due upon a certain contract, and for a deed conveying to plaintiff title to the premises mentioned in the contract. The answer alleged that the title to the lands was conveyed to defendant by the state of Minnesota, upon request of plaintiff, by certain patents; admitted that plaintiff had been in possession of the land, and gathered and converted to her own use the crops raised upon the land, and prayed for judgment against plaintiff for the possession of the land. The case was tried before Flaherty, J.,…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The facts in this case, without unnecessary detail, are as follows: Plaintiff’s husband, John Baumgartner, was, on May 1, 1905, the owner and holder of six certain contracts for the purchase of six *13separate, though adjoining, tracts of state land, aggregating two hundred forty acres. Plaintiff and her husband resided upon and cultivated the land as one farm, and part thereof constituted the family homestead. The land, or rather all the right, title, and interest of Baumgartner, had been levied upon and sold under an execution issued upon a judgment rendered against him, and the time of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fleming v. EllisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Anderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harbal v. Federal Land Bank of St. PaulCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Enkema v. McIntyreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Whitney Co. v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Concordia College Corporation v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Petrich v. BerknerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919