Inglee v. Welles

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Inglee v. Welles

55 N.W. 117, 53 Minn. 197, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 300

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 3, 1893·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the proof of publication of the notice of Us pendens with the summons is sufficient; also, that the nature of the action, and the nonresidence of the named defendant, Delia W. Godding, sufficiently appeared from.the affidavit for publication.

[199] We are also of opinion that the mere fact that the named defendant was dead before the action was brought did- not prevent; the court from acquiring jurisdiction to determine the right of “persons or parties unknown” claiming an interest in the land described in the complaint.

These being all the objections to the judgment that are urged by the appellants, the order appealed from must be affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 117.)

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

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the proof of publication of the notice of Us pendens with the summons is sufficient; also, that the nature of the action, and the nonresidence of the named defendant, Delia W. Godding, sufficiently appeared from.the affidavit for publication.

[199] We are also of opinion that the mere fact that the named defendant was dead before the action was brought did- not prevent; the court from acquiring jurisdiction to determine the right of “persons or parties unknown” claiming an interest in the land described in the complaint.

These being all the objections to the judgment that are urged by the appellants, the order appealed from must be affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 117.)

Inglee v. Welles, 55 N.W. 117, 53 Minn. 197, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 300 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

55 N.W. 117 (Inglee v. Welles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related