Bower v. O'Donnall
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of the premises described in the opinion, which were unoccupied, brought this action under Gen. St. 3878, c. 75, § 2, in the district court for Hennepin county, to quiet title.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of the premises described in the opinion, which were unoccupied, brought this action under Gen. St. 3878, c. 75, § 2, in the district court for Hennepin county, to quiet title. Defendant answered, setting up title in himself, through a sale for the taxes of 1874. The action was tried by Young, J., without a jury, who found as facts, that on September 1, 1875, a tax judgment was entered against the premises, under the description recited in the opinion, for the taxes of 1874; that on December 20, 1875, a certificate of sale thereof, with the description…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The tax judgment involved in this case describes the taxed property as follows:
Subdivision of Section, Lot, or Block. Section or Lot. Town or Block. Range. No. of Acres.
S. 60 rods, -W. JS. E.J 30 119 22 30
The county auditor’s certificate of sale describes the property sold under the judgment as.follows:
Subdivision or Addition. Section or Lot. Township or Block. Range.
S. 60 rods, W. -J S. E. \ 30 119 22
*137The descriptions of the property under the headings “Subdivision,” etc., though not such as a nice conveyancer would be likely to employ, are nevertheless commonly used and understood in this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- O'Mulcahy v. FlorerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
3Cited by5 opinions
- Power v. LarabeeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- London & Northwest American Mortgage Co. v. GibsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Russell v. GilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- In re the StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Cook v. John Schroeder Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1902