Minneapolis Trust Company v. Eastman
| Decision Date | 14 January 1892 |
| Citation | 50 N.W. 930,47 Minn. 301 |
| Parties | Minneapolis Trust Company v. William W. Eastman, impleaded, etc |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of November 2, 1891, Reported at: 47 Minn. 301.
Application denied.
The defendant having moved for a reargument, the following opinion on the motion was filed January 14, 1892:
After the filing of our decision on this appeal the appellant presented an application for a reargument. Having fully considered this application and the reasons urged in its support, it is concluded that it should be denied. In the opinion we did not refer to a point made by the appellant and again urged in the application for a reargument, -- that in the answer in the former action the St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Company disclaimed title to such part of the premises in controversy as had then ceased to be submerged land. If it be admitted that the answer, properly construed, did constitute or embrace such a disclaimer, it could not be given conclusive effect against that defendant or its assigns, contrary to the clear, express terms of the judgment in that action, which adjudged that defendant to be the owner in fee of the land extending "from low-water mark in said river to the line or margin of said river as raised by said dams in the month of May, 1867." That embraced the land here in question. The clear, precise, and certain adjudication as to the title was of conclusive effect upon the parties, and cannot be made subordinate to any admission or disclaimer in the answer contrary to the judgment.
It is claimed that we have misunderstood the fact as to the land covered by the tax deed, which was based upon the assessment of 1882; that at that time (1882) the accretion had formed substantially as it existed in 1887 and 1888, so that the land in question, or a part of it, was then above the water-line, and would be embraced in the tax deed of land "lying between Park street * * * and the Mississippi river." As to this, all that need be said is that the fact assumed as the basis for this contention is not disclosed by the record. It is not found as a fact that in 1882 there had been any such accretions to the land, nor does the bill of exceptions show that there was any evidence of such a fact. While it appears that such alluvial deposits had formed as early as 1887, nothing is shown as to the condition, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial