16 Minn. 151 (Minn. 1870), McKusick v. County Comm'rs of Washington County
|Citation:||16 Minn. 151|
|Opinion Judge:||Ripley, C. J.|
|Party Name:||John McKusick v. County Commissioners Washington County|
|Attorney:||Cornman & Lucky and H. J. Horn, for appellant. Isaac Van Vleck, for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Ripley, C. J. Berry, J., being unavoidably absent, took no part in the hearing or decision of this case.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Minnesota|
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court, Washington county, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The action was brought to have the title to a lot in Stillwater adjudged in plaintiff, and to enjoin defendant from selling or incumbering the same. The complaint alleged in substance that December 20, 1847, plaintiff, being the owner of the lot, executed a deed to the defendant, (setting it out in haec verba, from which it appears that the description was void; that the habendum was "to have and to hold the same so long as the same may be occupied by the said party of the second part as the seat of justice for the said county, or so long as the court-house for the said county shall remain and be occupied as such upon said premises, and no longer;" with this clause for reversion: "that if the county seat of said county shall be removed from the village of Stillwater aforesaid, the said parties of the second [first] part shall have the sole right, title, and interest in and to the said premises forever;") that the defendant erected a court-house on said premises, and used the same for holding courts and transacting other business of the county; that afterwards, at the request of defendant, the plaintiff executed to defendant a deed by which, by a proper description, he quitclaimed to the defendant the said premises, together with "the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders," "property, claim, and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity," of the plaintiff, of, in, or to, the said premises; that this deed recites a consideration of one dollar, but that in fact no consideration was received for it, but that it was given for the public use aforesaid, and upon representations by defendant to plaintiff that defendant would permanently maintain a court-house on the lot, and use the lot as the seat of justice and for the public purposes aforesaid, and for no other purpose, and in no other manner; that the defendant has abandoned the premises as the seat of justice of the county, and ceased to use the same for the public purposes aforesaid, and threatens and intends to sell the same.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
The removal of the public buildings as stated in the complaint, and the abandonment of the same, as the seat of justice, or for the use to which it was dedicated, have the effect of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP