Pinney v. Russell & Co.
Decision Date | 24 February 1893 |
Citation | 54 N.W. 484,52 Minn. 443 |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Parties | PINNEY v RUSSELL & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Evidence, largely circumstantial in its nature, held to show the identity of John W. Humphrey, the owner of certain land, as J. W. Humphrey, against whom a judgment was rendered and docketed in the county where such land was situated.
2. A record of a judgment against one whose Christian name is indicated only by initial letters is effectual to put upon inquiry a subsequent purchaser of lands the title of which appears of record in a person of the same family name as such judgment debtor, and whose Christian name has the same initial letters.
3. If it appears that the plaintiff, in a statutory action to determine adverse claims to unoccupied land, has no estate or interest therein, he is not entitled to judgment against the defendant.
Appeal from district court, Chippewa county; Brown, Judge.
Action by Leslie H. Pinney against Russell & Company to determine adverse claims to certain real estate in Chippewa county. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order refusing a new trial defendant appeals. Reversed.
Samuel Porter, for appellant.
J. F. Hilscher, for respondent.
This is an action under the statute to determine adverse claims to certain real estate in Chippewa county. The defendant is a corporation. Both parties claim to have acquired title from John W. Humphrey, who owned the land prior to 1877, when he executed a conveyance thereof, through which, the plaintiff asserted, title is derived. The defendant's claim of title is through an execution sale on a judgment rendered and docketed against J. W. Humphrey and others in 1874, and shortly before John W. Humphrey acquired the title to this land. The case was tried by a referee, whose decision in favor of the plaintiff was based in part on a finding that the J. W. Humphrey, one of the defendants against whom said judgment was rendered, was not identified as the John W. Humphrey who formerly owned the land. The correctness of this finding is called in question. The evidence going to show the identity of those persons was as follows: A witness residing in Chippewa county testified that for 13 years he had known John W. Humphrey, who owned this land, and who resided in that county during a part of the time of such ownership; that he was the only J. W. Humphrey he had known in that part of the country, although he (the witness) was well acquainted there; that, during the period in which the summons in the action above referred to was served, Humphrey resided in Minneapolis; that in 1871 this Humphrey and one M. C. Fitch bought a threshing machine,-the only one they ever owned together,-called a “Massillon Machine;” and that the name “Russell” was “printed” on the side of it; and that an action was prosecuted on the obligation given for the machine. The roll of the judgment through the execution of which the defendant claims title, as above stated, was received in evidence, showing that the action had been prosecuted against J. W. Humphrey and M. C. Fitch and another by several persons of the name of Russell, stated in the complaint to be partners, doing business at Massillon, in the state of Ohio, under the name of Russell & Co.; that the action was upon several notes or contracts alleged to have been executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Loser v. Plainfield
... ... would have disclosed." Bank v. Freeman, 171 ... U.S. 620 (19 S.Ct. 36, 43 L.Ed. 307); Pinney v ... Russell, 52 Minn. 443 (54 N.W. 484). "Whatever is ... sufficient to put a purchaser on a chain of inquiry is ... sufficient to charge him ... ...
-
Green v. Meyers
...sufficient notice of the full name Eleanor G. See Jones, Estate, 27 Pa. 336; Fisher v. Bush, 133 Ind. 315, 32 N.E. 924; Pinney v. Russell, 52 Minn. 443, 54 N.W. 484; Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan. 420, 31 P. In so concluding we are not unaware of those cases wherein the Supreme Court of this State......
-
Loser v. Plainfield Sav. Bank
...examination suggested by the record would have disclosed.” Bank v. Freeman, 171 U. S. 629, 19 Sup. Ct. 39, 43 L. Ed. 307;Pinney v. Russell, 52 Minn. 443, 54 N. W. 484. “Whatever is sufficient to put a purchaser on a chain of inquiry is sufficient to charge him with whatever an ordinary dili......
-
Green v. Meyers
...notice of the full name "Eleanor G." See case Jones' Estate, 27 Pa. 336; Fisher v. Bush, 133 Ind. 321, 32 N. E. 924; Pinney v. Russell, 52 Minn. 447, 54 N. W. 484; Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan. 420, 31 Pac. 1057, 34 Am. St. Rep. 129. In so concluding we are not unaware of those cases wherein the ......