Muller v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 22 November 1888
• Parties: MULLER ET AL. v JACKSON ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

39 Minn. 431

40 N.W. 565

MULLER ET AL.vJACKSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 22, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A “state assignment certificate,” executed pursuant to Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 89, is only evidence of title when accompanied by proof of service of the notice of the expiration of the time of redemption as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 121; and the burden of proof of service of such notice rests upon the party asserting title in fee under the certificate.

Proof of publication of a notice of the expiration of the time of redemption is inadmissible without first proving that it is addressed to the party in whose name the land was assessed, and that it had been delivered to the sheriff for service, and that he had made return thereon to the county auditor.

Where, in an action to determine adverse claim to real property, the defendant interposes an answer in the nature of a cross-action in ejectment for the recovery of the possession, and the plaintiff in reply sets up a claim for improvements under the “occupying claimants' act,” in case defendant establishes title, the matters set up in the reply constitute no part of plaintiff's case in chief under the complaint, but are only defensive to defendant's answer.

Where a party makes a single offer of certain evidence altogether, part of which is admissible and part inadmissible, it is not error to exclude the whole.

Proof that the title of real estate was in a party at a certain date, and that at a subsequent date he conveyed to another, is prima facie evidence of title in the latter. It is not necessary that he should prove affirmatively that his grantor had not in the meanwhile conveyed to a third party.

Appeal from district court, Dakota county; CROSBY, Judge.

Action by Agnes Muller and another against Sidney D. Jackson, Sanborn, and another, impleaded, to determine the title to real estate in the possession of plaintiffs. Upon the trial below plaintiffs offered to prove by one of their witnesses “the possession and improvements of the premises in question; that the same was made under color of title in fee, *** followed by adverse possession and improvement thereof, and in good faith, and without notice of any defects invalidating the said official certificates and deeds, and after the time for the redemption thereof had expired; *** the amount of the purchase price paid therefor, and the amount of taxes and assessments paid thereon by these plaintiffs and their grantors, and the value of the improvements made thereon; and that the same was made and possession had under an official deed and certificate *** regular upon its face, and without any notice of any defect invalidating the same, in good faith, and adversely to these defendants and their grantors.” The refusal of this offer was the basis of plaintiffs' third and fourth assignments of error. The case was tried without a jury, and from a judgment directed for defendants Walter H. Sanborn and Edward P. Sanborn plaintiffs appeal.

...