Bolles v. Carli
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This is an appeal by tbe plaintiff from an order of tbe District Court, for "Washington County, sustaining a demurrer interposed by tbe defendants, Mackey and McLane, to tbe complaint, on tbe ground that tbe same did state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Tbe allegations of tbe complaint are sufficiently stated in the opinion of tbe Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Bowt
McMillan, <J.
Tbe defendants, Andrew Mackey and Daniel McLane, demur to tbe plaintiff’s complaint. The demurrer was sustained in the court below, and *115tbe plaintiff appeals from tbe order sustaining tbe demurrer. Tbe complaint, in substance, shows that on tbe 10th of July, 1855, tbe plaintiff was tbe owner in fee of certain premises described in tbe complaint; that at, and prior to that time, be and Chloe Bolles were, and still are, husband and wife; that the plaintiff executed -and delivered to one George W. Taylor, two certain mortgages upon said premises, one on tbe 10th of July,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seager v. BurnsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sherin v. BrackettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Gilbert v. EldridgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Morse v. ZeizeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Carpenter v. GantzerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Omaha Street Railway Co. v. ElkinsNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.