Stocking v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 26 May 1886 |
| Citation | 28 N.W. 507,35 Minn. 207 |
| Parties | De Lafayette Stocking v. Randall W. Hanson and another. Randall W. Hanson v. Darwin Stocking and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The first of these actions was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, in April, 1871, by Cornell & Bradley as attorneys for plaintiff, against Wm. Hanson and Randall W Hanson, to recover possession of lots 9 and 10, in block 129 in Minneapolis. The defendants answered, the action was tried July 3, 1871, a decision in favor of defendants was made and filed February 19, 1873, judgment thereon was entered February 24, 1873, and notice of the entry of judgment was served on Cornell & Bradley, on March 1, 1873.
The plaintiff, De Lafayette Stocking, died testate January 6 1872. By his will he appointed Darwin Stocking and Benjamin N. Loomis his executors, and devised his estate, in undivided shares, to Darwin Stocking, Delphine Sophia Stocking, and others. This will was duly admitted to probate in Hennepin county on November 5, 1872, and recorded in the registry of deeds of that county on June 1, 1872.
On January 20, 1876, a supplemental complaint in the action was filed by George Bradley, as attorney, on behalf of the executors and devisees of the deceased plaintiff. This complaint recited the proceedings before had in the action the death of the original plaintiff, the probate of his will and the interests of the plaintiffs thereunder, and prayed that the judgment be opened, that they be substituted for De Lafayette Stocking as plaintiffs, and have leave and time to make a case for appeal from the judgment to the supreme court. The defendant answered, and plaintiffs demurred to the answer, and the demurrer was sustained by the district court. On appeal to this court, the order sustaining the demurrer was reversed. (Stocking v. Hanson, 22 Minn. 542.) After the decision in this court, judgment was entered, by stipulation, in favor of defendants, on September 6, 1876.
The second action was brought against the executors and devisees of De Lafayette Stocking to determine their claims to any interest in lot 10, block 129, -- one of the lots involved in the first action. The complaint and summons were filed January 21, 1875, and on the same day George Bradley served notice of appearance as attorney for the defendants. An answer was interposed, and the action was tried by a jury, and on May 25, 1876, a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and judgment thereon was at once entered.
On September 19, 1885, a motion was made in the first action, on behalf of the executors and of Delphine Sophia Stocking, that the decision filed February 19, 1873, (after the death of De Lafayette Stocking,) be vacated, and that they be substituted as parties plaintiff, with leave to prosecute the action to a final determination, or to begin a new action against the persons then in possession of the land as they might be advised. They also moved that the supplemental complaint filed in December, 1875, and all proceedings thereon, including the judgment entered September 6, 1876, be vacated and declared null and void.
At the same time the defendants in the second action, the executors and devisees of De Lafayette Stocking, appearing specially, made a motion in that action that the judgment and all the proceedings therein be declared null and void, and be vacated and set aside.
The motions were based on the affidavits of the executors and all the devisees of De Lafayette Stocking, each affidavit being to the effect that the affiant never knew Cornell & Bradley or George Bradley, and never directly or indirectly employed or authorized them or either of them to institute, appear in or conduct either of the actions; that neither Cornell & Bradley nor George Bradley ever presented any bill or received any pay for services; that the affiant has never been a resident of Minnesota, was never served with the summons in the second action, and never knew of either suit, or the judgment or any of the proceedings, until some time between September, 1884, and April, 1885.
It appeared that Messrs. Cornell and Bradley had been dead several years. In opposition to the motions it was shown that the first action was brought under the direction of McFarlane, Burd & Co., real-estate agents in Minneapolis, who employed Cornell & Bradley as attorneys pursuant to the following written agreement:
To continue reading
Request your trial