Sanford v. Flint
| Decision Date | 16 July 1909 |
| Docket Number | 15,937 - (1) |
| Citation | 122 N.W. 315,108 Minn. 399 |
| Parties | DAVID SANFORD v. GEORGE C. FLINT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to determine adverse claims to a certain strip of land. The case was tried before Hallam, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Attorney and Client.
The plaintiff claimed title to the land here in question by adverse possession; but the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was under disability so to assert title thereto by reason of his relations as attorney to former owners of the land, through whom the defendant claimed title. Held, the obligation of fidelity which an attorney owes to his client is a continuing one, and he cannot make use of any knowledge acquired through his client, or through his professional relations, for his own advantage, adverse to the interests of his client or those claiming through him, even after the confidential relations have ceased.
Adverse Possession -- Findings.
The findings and decision of the trial court that the plaintiff was not under such disability, and that he had acquired title to the land by adverse possession, are sustained by the evidence.
W. H Yardley, for appellant.
F. W Zollman, for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from the judgment of the district court of the county of Ramsey in this an action to determine adverse claims to the land described in the complaint. The subject-matter of the action is a portion of lot 3, in block 28, of Kittson's addition to St. Paul, consisting of a strip of land 6.2 feet wide on the front and 9.35 feet wide on the rear, and lying alongside of lot 4 in the same block. The record title to lot 3 is in the defendant, Flint, and that of lot 4 in the plaintiff, who claimed title to the strip in question by adverse possession. The trial court found that the plaintiff had been in the actual, open, hostile, and adverse possession of the strip for more than fifteen years next before the commencement of the action, and as a conclusion of law that he was entitled to judgment that he is the owner of the land in fee simple and that the defendant has no title to or interest therein.
The defendant's assignments of error raise the question whether the trial court's finding of fact on the issue of adverse possession is sustained by the evidence. The evidence is practically conclusive that the plaintiff was in the actual possession of the land for more than fifteen years, claiming to be the owner thereof; but it is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff was under disability to acquire or assert title thereto in himself by adverse possession, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial