McMillan v. Cheeney
| Decision Date | 03 July 1883 |
| Citation | 16 N.W. 404,30 Minn. 519 |
| Parties | Runald McMillan v. Christopher W. Cheeney and another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action to determine adverse claims, brought by plaintiff in the district court for Hennepin county, in 1882. Defendants, in their answer, set up, as a cause of action, fraud on the part of the plaintiff, in obtaining a conveyance of the property in question, in 1871, from their mother, who died in 1878 and whose heirs they are. In his reply, the plaintiff pleaded the statute of limitations to the defendants' cause of action. On plaintiff's motion, judgment in his favor on the pleadings was ordered by Shaw, J., and defendants appeal from the judgment so entered.
Judgment affirmed.
Seagrave Smith, for appellants.
The main question in this case is the recovery by the defendants of the real estate in question. The prayer to have the deeds referred to in the answer set aside is only collateral to that question. Wright v. Leclaire, 3 Iowa, 221; Phares v. Walters, 6 Iowa, 106; Williams v Allison, 33 Iowa 278; Inhabitants of Worcester v Eaton, 13 Mass. 371; Carr v. Thompson, 87 N.Y. 160. The defendants base their right to recover on the ground that the deed under which plaintiff claims is void. The section of the statute of limitations relied on by the court below applies to "an action for relief on the ground of fraud." The defendants do not ask for relief or for damages, and, if they did, the statute would be a bar. Their cause of action is ejectment, to recover the property, and is not barred by the statute until the expiration of twenty years. "It is a familiar principle that a statute of limitations should not be applied to cases not clearly within its provisions." Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 358, (480, 492;) Hazel v. Shelby, 11 Ill. 9; Marvin v. Lewis, 61 Barb. 49; Stanley v. Morse, 26 Iowa 454; Williams v. Allison, supra.
F. Hooker and F. B. Hart, for respondent.
This is the statutory action to determine an adverse claim. The position of defendants, as appears by their answer and admissions upon the trial, is, in substance, this: They admit that the legal title of the property in dispute is in plaintiff, and that he is in possession. But they allege that they are the children and heirs-at-law of Sarah Cheeney, who, by intermarriage with plaintiff, became Sarah McMillan; that she being the owner of the property at the time of such marriage, (the same having been given to her by defendants,) plaintiff, with intent and for the purpose of cheating and defrauding defendants, as her heirs-at-law, out of the same, by preventing it from descending to them, and to secure it for himself, "by threats, intimidation, and undue influence, made and practised by him towards" her, and without paying any consideration therefor, shortly after the marriage, to wit, on October 5, 1871, procured the property to be conveyed to himself, through a third person. Sarah McMillan died September 11, 1878, more than six years after the consummation of the alleged fraud. Defendants, in their answer, allege that they are the owners of the property in law and equity, and entitled to its possession, and demand judgment that the deeds by which the conveyance to plaintiff was accomplished be declared void and set aside, that the property be adjudged in defendants, and its possession awarded to them.
The principal question presented is, whether defendants' cross-action, set up in their answer, -- Eastman v Linn, 20 Minn. 387, (433,) -- is one for relief on the ground of fraud, which may be commenced within six years after the cause thereof accrued, or an action for recovery of real property, which may be commenced within twenty years from the time when the plaintiff, or the person under whom he claims, was seized or possessed thereof. The learned judge by whom the case was heard below, was of opinion that it was the former, and gave judgment for plaintiff accordingly. We think he was right. The cross-action which defendants have in...
To continue reading
Request your trial