Doyle v. Hallam
Supreme Court of Minnesota
At the trial of this action in the district court for Hennepin county, before Vanderburgh, J., the judgment roll in a former action between the parties was offered in evidence by the defendant, and the court instructed the jury that the judgment in such former action was a conclusive bar to this action. The jury found a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered, and plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The plaintiff Doyle, alleging that he is owner in fee, and in possession of certain lands, brings this action to determine the adverse claim of defendant Hallam to the same. The defence is a former adjudication in an action brought by Hallam against Doyle, in the complaint in which *516Hallam alleged, in substance, that she was “ owner in fee,, and entitled to the immediate possession” of the premises in dispute, that Doyle was in possession of the same, and wrongfully withholding possession thereof from her, (Hal-lam,) and demanded judgment for possession and damages. Upon Doyle’s failure to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miles v. CaldwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Marshall v. ShafterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Sturdy v. JackawaySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hudson v. Iguano Land & Mining Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1912
- Bazille v. MurraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Elizabethport Cordage Co. v. WhitlockSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Sheets v. RamerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Geo. Benz & Sons v. HassieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.