Erkens v. Nicolin
| Decision Date | 28 November 1888 |
| Citation | 40 N.W. 567,39 Minn. 461 |
| Parties | ERKENS v NICOLIN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Money paid under mistake of law cannot be recovered back where the transaction is unaffected by any fraud, trust, confidence, or the like, and both parties knew all the facts.1
Applied to a case where a party, under ignorance of the rule of law that distances must yield to natural boundaries called for in a deed, paid money for aquitclaim of property which, unadr this rule, already belonged to him.
Appeal from district court, Scott county; EDSON, Judge.
Action by Fred Erkens against Frank Nicolin to recover back money paid for a quitclaim deed. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Peck & Brown, for appellant.
E. Southworth and R. H. McClelland, for respondent.
Action to recover back the money paid by plaintiff to defendant for a quitclaim deed of a piece of land in the village of Jordan. The facts, as disclosed by the evidence, are that defendant platted into lots a tract of land, of which he was the owner, lying between Water street and Sand creek. As shown upon the plat, the north and south lines of the lots extend from Water street to the creek. The distance marked on the plat gave the length of these lines as 80 feet, but the actual distance from Water street to the creek was 110 feet. One of these lots, and the adjoining 35 feet of another, had been conveyed by defendant, according to the plat, to plaintiff or plaintiff's grantor. Subsequently defendant claimed and stated to plaintiff, in substance, that the lots only extended back 80 feet, according to the distance indicated on the plat, and hence that he still owned the strip of 30 feet next to the creek. Plaintiff knew that defendant's claim was based wholly upon the theory that the distance given on the plat would control, and hence that his claim of title was in fact but expressions of opinion as to the legal effect and construction to be given to the plat. So far as the evidence shows, defendant made this claim in good faith, and honestly supposed that his deeds of the lots only conveyed 80 feet. Plaintiff took the matter under consideration for nearly a month, and went to the register's office and examined the plat for himself. He then obtained from defendant and wife a quitclaim deed of all the land down to the creek, and paid therefor the money which he now seeks to recover. When he paid the money he knew all the facts, and had the same means of knowledge of them which defendant had. The transaction was unaffected by any fraud, trust, confidence, or the like. The parties dealt with each other at arm's length. Plaintiff was not laboring under any mistake of facts. He took the deed, and paid his money under a mistake of law as to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettibone v. Cook County, Minnesota
...of a moral character should be addressed to that department of state affairs. Such is the law of this state. Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 461, 40 N.W. 567. And legislative relief has often been granted in furtherance of substantial justice. Bowen v. City of Minneapolis, 47 Minn. 115, 49 N.W.......
-
Board of Park Com'rs v. Taylor
... ... description, a part of the deed and has the same effect as ... though it were incorporated into the instrument. Nicolin ... v. Schneiderhan, 37 Minn. 63 (33 N.W. 33). Therefore ... defendants' deeds, although they contain no calls to the ... Des Moines river, do, by ... description. County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 90 ... U.S. 46, 23 Wall. 46 (23 L.Ed. 59); Erkens v ... Nicolin, 39 Minn. 461 (40 N.W. 567) Spring v ... Hewston, 52 Cal. 442; Liddle v. Blake, 131 Iowa ... 165, 105 N.W. 649. Where a river or ... ...
-
Bd. of Park Com'rs v. Taylor
...controls courses and distances in the description. County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 46, 23 L. Ed. 59;Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 461, 40 N. W. 567;Spring v. Hewston, 52 Cal. 442;Liddle v. Blake (Iowa) 105 N. W. 649. Where a river or lake is designated as the boundary, the......
-
Cohen v. Swift & Co.
...192 U.S. 253, 259, 24 S.Ct. 262, 264 (48 L.Ed. 432); Detroit Edison Co. v. Wyatt Co. (C.C.A.) 293 F. 489. See, also, Erkens v. Nicolin, 39 Minn. 461, 40 N.W. 567; Lamborn v. Dickinson County Com'rs, 97 U.S. 181, 24 L.Ed. 926. In Kastner v. Duffy-Mott Co., 125 Misc. 886, 213 N.Y.S. 128, the ......