Lovett v. Prentice
| Decision Date | 24 December 1890 |
| Citation | 44 F. 459 |
| Parties | LOVETT et al. v. PRENTICE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
The complainants, Charles E. Lovett, Frank R. Webber, C. A Stewart, and R. T. Lewis, allege that they are severally the owners in fee of certain tracts of land situate in St. Louis county, state of Minnesota, in Duluth proper, third division according to the recorded plat thereof. The particular lot owned by each plaintiff is given, and it is further stated that the lands described are a part of a certain tract described according to the government survey, which had been laid out into town lots, which are owned by 700 different persons. That an undivided one-half interest of each of the said lots is claimed and owned in severalty under conveyances from John M. Gilman, as a common source of title. That Gilman acquired title to the said undivided one-half interest under a deed from Benjamin Armstrong and wife, dated August 30 1864. That Armstrong and wife, September 11, 1856, executed and delivered a deed to the defendant, Frederick Prentice which was duly recorded, of certain real estate described and bounded as follows:
'One undivided 1/2 of all the following described piece or parcel of land situate in the county of St. Louis, and territory of Minnesota, and known and described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a large stone or rock at the head of St. Louis River bay, nearly adjoining Minnesota point; commencing at said rock, and running east one mile, north one mile, west one mile, south one mile, to the place of beginning, and being the land set off to the Indian chief Buffalo at the Indian treaty of September 30, A.D. 1854, and which was afterwards disposed of by said Buffalo to said Armstrong, and is now recorded with the government documents.'
That none of the plaintiffs' lands are included in or intended to be described in the Prentice deed, and that Prentice wrongfully claims that the plaintiffs' lots are included in the land described in the Armstrong deed to him. It is further charged that defendant claims ownership, and has brought ejectment suits against several persons other than the plaintiffs above specifically named, and alleges that this suit is brought, not only on their own behalf, but in behalf of others claiming any interest in any of the lands which has been derived or claimed from J. M. Gilman, as aforesaid, and to whose said interest an adverse claim of title is set up by said defendant as against the Gilman title, and who may come in to be made parties plaintiff to this action. The relief claimed is a judgment adjudging that Gilman owned an undivided one-half of the land described in the Armstrong deed to him August 31, 1864, and that said title be quieted and settled as against the adverse claim of the defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company v. Coker
...v. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 32 S.Ct. 9, 56 L.Ed. 81; Miller v. National City Bank of New York, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 798; Lovett v. Prentice, C.C., 44 F. 459; note 72 A.L.R. 193. Conversely, the plaintiff may maintain action against the infant defendants for determining its liability under......
-
Jamerson v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia
...v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 25 L.Ed. 782; First State Bank v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (C.C.A.) 63 F.(2d) 585, 90 A.L.R. 544; Lovett v. Prentice (C.C.) 44 F. 459; American Central Ins. Co. v. Harmon Knitting Mills (C.C.A.) 39 F.(2d) 21; Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co. v. Ciaccio (C.C.A.) 38 F......
- Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.