Axdell v. Tonnesson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Axdell v. Tonnesson

126 N.W. 1134, 111 Minn. 541, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 766

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 1, 1910

DocketNos. 16,617—(73)

StatusPublished

This text of 126 N.W. 1134 (Axdell v. Tonnesson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Axdell v. Tonnesson, 126 N.W. 1134, 111 Minn. 541, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 766 (Mich. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ctjriam.

One Osman Axdell, plaintiff and respondent, brought this action against defendant and appellant, alleging that plaintiff owned certain land, defendant had recovered a judgment, fully described, against Osman Axtell, and claimed an adverse estate or interest, which was unfounded in fact or in law. The gist of defendant’s demurrer was that plaintiff admits that [defendant] has a claim, and he also admits that such claim is “unfounded, both in fact and in law.” Defendant, therefore, had no lien, and plaintiff was entitled to no relief. The similarity in the names “Axdell” and “Axtell” gave rise to the evil of which plaintiff justly and properly complained. The demurrer was properly overruled by the court. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Ctjriam.

One Osman Axdell, plaintiff and respondent, brought this action against defendant and appellant, alleging that plaintiff owned certain land, defendant had recovered a judgment, fully described, against Osman Axtell, and claimed an adverse estate or interest, which was unfounded in fact or in law. The gist of defendant’s demurrer was that plaintiff admits that [defendant] has a claim, and he also admits that such claim is “unfounded, both in fact and in law.” Defendant, therefore, had no lien, and plaintiff was entitled to no relief. The similarity in the names “Axdell” and “Axtell” gave rise to the evil of which plaintiff justly and properly complained. The demurrer was properly overruled by the court. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.W. 1134, 111 Minn. 541, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/axdell-v-tonnesson-minn-1910.