Gahre v. Berry

• Decision Date: 04 January 1901
• Citation: 82 Minn. 200,84 N.W. 733
• Parties: GAHRE v. BERRY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

82 Minn. 200

84 N.W. 733

GAHRE

v.BERRY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 4, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; A. M. Harrison, Judge.

Action by Frank R. Gahre against Helen C. Berry. Verdict for defendant. From an order refusing a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A notice of redemption from a tax sale recited that ‘* * * the time allowed by law for redemption from said sale will have expired after sixty days have elapsed after service of this notice has been made, and proof thereof and of the sheriff's fees has been filed in this office. * * *’ Held invalid, as not stating the time to redeem. Mather v. Curley, 77 N. W. 957, 75 Minn. 248, followed.

2. Whether, at the second trial in ejectment proceedings, one making improvements while in possession under a judgment rendered in the first trial is entitled to compensation for said improvements, quaere. But in this case the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for improvements made while in possession, it not appearing whether the same were made prior to or subsequent to the entry of such judgment. M. H. Boutelle and N. H. Chase, for appellant.

C. G. Laybourn, for respondent.

LEWIS, J.

Action to determine adverse claims. On a former appeal it was decided that the defendant was entitled to a second trial, under section 5845, Gen. St. 1894. There are two question, only, calling for any notice on this appeal.

1. The plaintiff claims through a tax deed, and his title rests upon the validity of the notice of redemption from the tax sale. This notice is exactly like the one considered in the case of Mather v. Curley, 75 Minn. 248, 77 N. W. 957, and there held to be invalid because it did not state that the time to redeem would expire at the end of 60 days. Counsel for appellant has presented a very able argument in favor of the validity of the notice, and that it cannot be construed otherwise without doing violence to its language. This court has always applied the rule of strict construction in reference to redemption notices in tax proceedings, and although there is very strong ground for the position taken by appellant, and the decision referred to may seem to rest upon somewhat technical distinctions, such construction having been adopted by this court, and the decision having become a rule of property, it should stand as the settled law upon the subject.

2. Appellant claims that, having been in possession of the premises at the time...