Radley v. O'Leary

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Radley v. O'Leary

30 N.W. 457, 36 Minn. 173, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 275

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 9, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 30 N.W. 457 (Radley v. O'Leary) 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

Radley v. O'Leary, 30 N.W. 457, 36 Minn. 173, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 275 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Berry, J,

This is an action to recover leased premises, for nonpayment of rent, and is brought, not, as defendant appears to suppose,, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 33, but under Gen. St. 18-78, c. 84, § 11, which relates to forcible entries and unlawful detainers. This statement disposes of much of defendant’s brief, especially of that part relating to notice to quit.

Either the case was not tried in a workman-like manner, or the return of the justice does not accurately state what took place on the trial; but, nevertheless, we can gather from the evidence that plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to. the possession of the premises, and that defendant, a lessee in possession, was holding the same without paying the rent after it had become due according to the terms of his lease, and had been duly demanded. This state of facts entitled plaintiff to judgment awarding her possession.

There is nothing in the point that the justice had no jurisdiction, because title to real estate was involved in the proceedings before him-The evidence tending to show title, and consequent right of possession,, in plaintiff was not disputed. It did not then appear from the evidence that the title to real estate was involved, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the justice, and make out a ease for certification to the-[174]*174district court, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 65, § 37; Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 344, (387;) Merriam v. Baker, 9 Minn. 28, (40;) Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 267, (9 N. W. Rep. 772;) State v. Cotton, 29 Minn. 187, (12 N. W. Rep. 529.)

Judgment affirmed.

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

Berry, J,

This is an action to recover leased premises, for nonpayment of rent, and is brought, not, as defendant appears to suppose,, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 33, but under Gen. St. 18-78, c. 84, § 11, which relates to forcible entries and unlawful detainers. This statement disposes of much of defendant’s brief, especially of that part relating to notice to quit.

Either the case was not tried in a workman-like manner, or the return of the justice does not accurately state what took place on the trial; but, nevertheless, we can gather from the evidence that plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to. the possession of the premises, and that defendant, a lessee in possession, was holding the same without paying the rent after it had become due according to the terms of his lease, and had been duly demanded. This state of facts entitled plaintiff to judgment awarding her possession.

There is nothing in the point that the justice had no jurisdiction, because title to real estate was involved in the proceedings before him-The evidence tending to show title, and consequent right of possession,, in plaintiff was not disputed. It did not then appear from the evidence that the title to real estate was involved, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the justice, and make out a ease for certification to the-[174]*174district court, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 65, § 37; Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 344, (387;) Merriam v. Baker, 9 Minn. 28, (40;) Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 267, (9 N. W. Rep. 772;) State v. Cotton, 29 Minn. 187, (12 N. W. Rep. 529.)

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 457, 36 Minn. 173, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radley-v-oleary-minn-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack