Kampfer v. E. Side Syndicate

• Decision Date: 30 June 1905
• Citation: 95 Minn. 309,104 N.W. 290
• Parties: KAMPFER v. EAST SIDE SYNDICATE et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 Minn. 309

104 N.W. 290

KAMPFER

v.EAST SIDE SYNDICATE et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 30, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; William Louis Kelly, Judge.

Action by Augusta Kampfer against the East Side Syndicate and Marcellus L. Countryman, receiver. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A married woman is not, by reason of her relation to her husband, prohibited from purchasing tax titles upon property which he holds under a lease from a third party.

In an action to determine adverse claims where there was a claim for improvements under the occupying claimant's act, held:

(1) That upon the findings of fact and conclusion of law the description of a city lot was sufficiently certain to enable its location and identity.

(2) That the findings of fact reasonably construed indicate that the premises were held by the occupant under color of title in fee.

(3) That the findings of fact sustain the conclusions of law, and authorized the judgment directed. Edward B. Graves, for appellants.

William G. White, for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

In an action under the statute to determine adverse claims, findings of fact and law were made holding that defendant have judgment for a city lot conditioned that plaintiff, an occupying claimant, have pay for her improvements, and was entitled to receive certain sums paid in liquidation of taxes paid or bid in by her at tax sales. The evidence was not returned either in a bill of exceptions or settled case, and this brings here only the findings, with the question whether they support the judgment. On this appeal three questions only are presented which we deem it our duty to notice. It was claimed that the description of the property was imperfect, an impossible description in fact. We have reached the conclusion that, while the description was technically inaccurate, it was not an impossible description, but such as would enable a surveyor to locate the property in suit from what was correctly described in the complaint, which is sufficient (Doherty v. Real Estate Ins. Co., 85 Minn. 518, 89 N. W. 853); and we can conceive of no benefit in setting forth or construing the description at length, since under the findings of the court, which must control in this case, the identity and location of the premises was well known and acted upon by all parties to this suit for a number of years prior to the commencement of the action, and hence this...