Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Minn. 299

Wilson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 11, 1879

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1879-12-11

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action was tried before Young, J., a-jury being waived. cited zorley v. Naylor, 6 Minn. 123 (192;) Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 45; Pratt v. Tinckom, 21 Minn. 142; Dayton v. Mintzer, 22 Minn. 393; Parsons v. Lanning, 27 N. J. Eq. 70; Olcott v. Robinson, 21 N. Y. 150.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-12-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1917

5 state decisions

2018791880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

. Gileillan, C. J.

¶1Ejectment. Plaintiff claims under an administrator’s sale; defendants under a conveyance by devisees in decedent’s will. The only objection to the sale is to the publication, of notice. The sale was appointed for and took place on November 1, 1877. The first publication of the notice was on October 6th; the second, October 13th; and the third and last, October 20th. The statute (Gen. St. c. 57, § -35,) requires notice of sale in such case to be published “for three weeks successively next before such sale.” It is conceded, and it could not well be disputed, that the three weeks of publication were not complete till October 27th. The objection is that four days elapsed after the three weeks and before the sale; and it is claimed that, to be regular, the sale ought to have been made on the next day after the three weeks. This would be a very narrow construction of the statute, and might lead to serious inconveniences in making such sales. In this case the sale was within the week after the publication became complete, and that-was correct. The true reading of the statute is that there shall be a publication for full three weeks, one in each week next before that in which the sale takes place; in other words, that the sale may be made at any time within the week next after the three weeks of publication are complete.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/26/minn/299 · .json · Public domain