Kipp v. Love
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Cass county to determine adverse claims to certain unoccupied land. The history of the case is given in the opinion. The ease was tried as to defendant Ida C. Mulliken before McClenahan, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendant, subject to the lien of plaintiff for the several amounts for which the parcels of land were sold with interest from the date of such sales.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Cass county to determine adverse claims to certain unoccupied land. The history of the case is given in the opinion. The ease was tried as to defendant Ida C. Mulliken before McClenahan, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendant, subject to the lien of plaintiff for the several amounts for which the parcels of land were sold with interest from the date of such sales. From the judgment in favor of defendant Mulliken entered pursuant to the order for judgment, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of certain lands in Cass county, Minnesota, brought this action to determine adverse claims. The summons was served upon respondent by publication, and within a year she applied to have the judgment as to the lands here in controversy vacated and for leave to answer. The application was granted. In her answer she denied plaintiff’s ownership, admitted that the premises were unoccupied, and alleged that she was owner; and, for a second defense and counterclaim, the answer alleged that under the treaty of February 22, 1855, between the United States and…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Webster v. LutherSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Webster v. LutherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Nicholson v. CongdonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Culligan v. Cosmopolitan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- F. H. Wellcome Co. v. County of MarshallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928