Knudson v. Curley

• Decision Date: 06 June 1883
• Citation: 30 Minn. 433
• Parties: OLE KNUDSON <I>vs.</I> PATRICK CURLEY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

30 Minn. 433

OLE KNUDSON vs. PATRICK CURLEY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 6, 1883.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Fill-more county, where the action was tried by Farmer, J., without a jury.

E. N. Donaldson, for appellant.

Gray & Thompson, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The complaint in this action was clearly drawn as a bill in equity, under the former system of pleading, to set aside a tax sale and the certificate issued thereon as being a cloud upon plaintiff's title. The order in which the trial was proceeded with in the introduction of evidence, corroborates this view, the plaintiff assuming the burden of proving the cloud and its invalidity.

The complaint was not good as one to remove a specific cloud from the title, because it alleges no facts showing that the tax sale or certificate was not valid; the only allegation in that regard being "that said sale of said land was made without authority of law, and is void." This court has held that a complaint which is clearly framed as one to remove a specific cloud upon title to real estate cannot, if defective as such, be sustained as a complaint in an action under Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, §§ 2, 3, to determine an adverse claim, although it states facts showing that plaintiff might have brought and maintained such a statutory action. Walton v. Perkins, 28 Minn. 413. The reasons for this, arising out of the special and extraordinary nature of this statutory action, are fully stated in the opinion of this court in the case referred to, and need not be here repeated. We must, therefore, in the consideration of this case, treat it as an action to remove a cloud from title.

The findings of the court (except as to possession, which is not material) are "that all the allegations and averments of the plaintiff's complaint are true, and all the denials and allegations of the defendant's answer, inconsistent with or contradicting the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, are untrue." Now, if the complaint had stated facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action attempted to be set up, these findings would have been sufficient to support the judgment. Also, if, notwithstanding the insufficiency of the complaint, the parties had gone fully into the trial of the subject-matter, and the court had found facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to judgment, the complaint might have been amended to conform to the facts proved and found, and the judgment have been sustained....