Hartman v. Munch

Decided October 21, 1874

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1874-10-21

This action was brought in the district court for Sibley county, to recover possession of a tract of land in that county, containing eighty acres, and was tried before Ghat-field, J. and a jury. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff having established the facts stated in the following opinion, the action was dismissed on the defendant’s motion, and a judgment of dismissal and for costs was entered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1877

2 state decisions

Cited in Cyclopedic (1922)’s definition of “Owner”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-10-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Berry, J.

¶1Adam Munch was assignee of two school-*108land certificates, of the same character as those considered in Wilder v. Haughey (ante, p. 101). It appeared that he had assigned the certificates to the plaintiff, but that the defendant (his wife) did not join in the assignment. It also appeared that at the time when the assignment was executed, the premises covered by the certificates were occupied by said Adam and the defendant, they claiming the same as a homestead. The right and interest of said Adam being such as to entitle him to hold the premises as a homestead, under the provisions of ch. 68, Gen. Stat., as we have determined at this term in Wilder v. Haughey, ante, p. 101, the court below was right in holding the assignment to be invalid.

¶2The return is not in a condition to enable us to consider the point made as to the entry of judgment, or the alleged failure to attach a copy thereof to the roll.

¶3Judgment affirmed.