Home/Eighth Circuit/Harding v. Minneapolis Northern Ry. Co.

Harding v. Minneapolis Northern Ry. Co.

84 F. 287, 28 C.C.A. 419, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2189
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 13, 1897
DocketNo. 929
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 84 F. 287 (Harding v. Minneapolis Northern Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harding v. Minneapolis Northern Ry. Co., 84 F. 287, 28 C.C.A. 419, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2189 (8th Cir. 1897).

Opinion

THAYER, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error in the lower court to recover the possession of a tract of land in the city of Minneapolis, Minn., which was a part of a formerly well-defined island in the Mississippi river. He deraigned his title to the land in question under a patent issued by the United States to Peare Botenau (properly spelled Pierre Bottineau), on March 25, 1849, whereby there was granted to the pat-entee, his heirs and assigns, “the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and lot number one of section fourteen in township twenty-nine north, of range twenty-four west, in the district of lands subject to sale at the Falls of St. Croix, Wisconsin, containing seventy-five acres and thirty-two-hundredths of an acre, according to the official plat of the survey of the said lands returned to the general land office by the surveyor general.” The plat which appears on the following page is a copy of the public survey to which reference was made in the aforesaid patent. Lot 1, which is referred to in the patent, is indicated on the plat by red lines, and contains 35.32 acres. It will be observed [290]*290that lot 1 has a river frontage, and, while the fact is not disclosed by the plat of the original survey, yet it is nevertheless true that, at the time said survey was made and hied in the general land office, there was a small island in the Mississippi river in front of lot 1, at the place indicated on the plat by a star, which lay on the east side of the main channel of the Mississippi river, and was subsequently known as “Boom Island.” The land claimed by the plaintiff in this case is a part of Boom island, and he asserts a title thereto, not because it was in terms conveyed to him by his grantor, but because he has become the owner, by mesne conveyances under Botti-neau, of a part of the land originally patented to him, which abuts on the Mississippi river opposite to the south end of Boom island.

[288]*288

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

Related

Fitzpatrick v. Berthel
223 N.W. 767 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Hobart v. Hall
174 F. 433 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, 1909)
Webber v. Axtell
102 N.W. 915 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 F. 287, 28 C.C.A. 419, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-minneapolis-northern-ry-co-ca8-1897.