Hanson v. Eastman

• Decision Date: 01 May 1875
• Citation: 21 Minn. 509
• Parties: WILLIAM HANSON <I>vs.</I> WILLIAM W. EASTMAN & others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 509

21 Minn. 509

WILLIAM HANSONvs.

WILLIAM W. EASTMAN & others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 1, 1875.

Action to recover possession of a piece of land in Hennepin county, described in the complaint as follows: "Commencing at the northeast corner of lot number six (6), in block number one hundred and ten (110), in the city of Minneapolis, in said county, running thence in a northeasterly direction about eighty-eight and one-half (88 1-2) feet, until it intersects the section line between sections twenty-five and twenty-six, thence along said section line, in a westerly direction, to the intersection of said line with block one hundred and sixteen (116) above mentioned, thence easterly along the northern boundary of said block one hundred and sixteen (116) about one hundred and sixty (160) feet, to the place of beginning."

At the trial in the district court for Hennepin county, before Vanderburgh, J., it appeared that plaintiff was sole heir of D. M. Hanson, who platted the same as part of Minneapolis, that there were no streets on the north of the section line, the ground being unplatted, and that plaintiff did not claim any land adjoining the premises in question. The plat of Minneapolis was offered in evidence by defendants, and admitted under objection and exception taken by plaintiff. So much of this plat as is material is shown in the opinion. It further appeared that defendants occupied block 116 as a lumber yard, and that some of their lumber piles extended a few feet beyond the line of the block, and upon the premises in question. Plaintiff's counsel claimed the right to address the jury on the evidence bearing upon the question whether the premises in question were a public street, (the only evidence on this point being the plat.) The court, however, refused to submit the question to the jury, and decided, from the plat in evidence, that the premises in question were a public street, and so instructed the jury, to which plaintiff excepted. The jury found for defendants, a new trial was denied, and plaintiff appealed.

Atwater & Babcock, for appellant.

D. A. Secombe, for respondents.

BERRY, J.

Dominicus M. Hanson, (through whom the plaintiff claims,) being owner of a certain tract of land, laid out and platted the same in accordance with the statute, and his plat was duly executed and recorded. So much of the plat as is important for the purposes of this opinion is represented on the following sketch:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING...