Lamprey v. Pike

• Decision Date: 01 January 1886
• Citation: 28 F. 30
• Parties: LAMPREY v. PIKE and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

28 F. 30

LAMPREY v. PIKE and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

June Term, 1886

U. L Lamprey, for plaintiff.

Williams & Goodenow, for defendant.

MILLER Justice.

This is a chancery suit, brought originally in the state court, and transferred to this court. It was an action under the statutes of the state of Minnesota to quiet title to real estate in a case where the possession was not in either party. Those statutes exist throughout all the western states, as far as I know, and the intention of the framers of them generally was that an action in the nature of an action of ejectment should be brought, and the proper issues made to determine the state of the title, and to quiet the title. The supreme court of the United States has held that while these may be called actions of ejectment in the state courts inasmuch as the remedy to be applied, and the right asserted are essentially of an equitable character, in the federal courts they are to be treated as bills in chancery, in the nature of a bill to quiet title. This suit is brought against persons, some, or perhaps all, of whom are non-residents, though in this case they have appeared and answered. The plaintiff relies upon two propositions to justify a decree against the defendants to quiet his title. The first of these is that the records which he produces, the deeds of conveyance, and derivation of title from the United States to him, show that he is the holder of the legal title to the property in controversy. He also produces in his bill, and relies upon, a judgment of the district court of Ramsey county, in which court he had brought a similar action, and obtained a decree quieting his title. If that suit had ended there with a decree in his favor, plaintiff need not have proceeded further, and there would have been no necessity for this suit; for it appears that the proper publication was made in accordance with the statutes of the state of Minnesota with regard to unknown or absent defendants. But these parties, who are interested here, and are defendants in this case, appeared in that court within a period of one year from the time when the judgment was rendered, and on their appearance the order of the court, so far as they were concerned, was practically set aside; or, at least, an order was made that the case should be reopened, and they be permitted to come in and defend. As far as we are informed, that order remains, and no further proceedings have been taken in the case. It seems to us, however, very plain that that nullifies the order as a judgment of res adjudicata against those parties who are permitted to come in and defend. It cannot be relied upon as concluding the parties, when, by their appearance within that time, they are permitted to defend; and it goes to show that this is not, as to them, a conclusive decree, and that the judgment may be set aside.

Then coming to the consideration of the case on its merits, we are satisfied that the plaintiff shows a regular derivation of title from the government of the United States to the land and lots in controversy; but the defense sets up a sale of those lands under a judgment against former owners by the name of Ambs and Whitman, in each of whom at one time an interest was vested, according to the evidence, by title from those who had held it. The lands lay in Dakota county at the time that judgment was rendered in Ramsey county against Ambs and Whitman. An attempt was made, under the statute of the state of Minnesota, to have a transcript of that judgment filed in the court of Dakota county, and docketed in that court. A sale was made under the judgment of the Ramsey county court on an execution issued to the sheriff of Dakota county, and these defendants claim that the land was purchased by their...