APPEAL PROM A JUDGMENT OP THE DISTRICT COURT OP DAKOTA COUNTY.

The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for Appellant:

The District Court erred in giving judgment for Defendant for the following reasons, viz : Because,'

First — The Defendant in his answer in said action does not claim, allege nor state any title in, nor the right of possession of the premises in dispute in the Defendant nor any one else; but goes behind the sale by said Sheriff and his certificate thereof, and attempts to show that the same was irregularly sold by said Sheriff, and irregularly purchased by said Plaintiff; thereby in a collateral proceeding attempts to set aside a conveyance made by said Sheriff under the provision of Chapter 75 Revised Statutes of Minnesota, pages 434-7.

Second — Because said Defendant in no part of his pleadings or evidence in said action claims possession of said premises nor the right of possession to tue same, either in Defendant nor any other person under whom Defendant claims to hold possession thereof.

N/mW — Because the Court below erred in sustaining the demurrer or objection to Plaintiff’s complaint herein.

Fowrth — Because the pretended defence which Defendant attempts to set up in his said answer could only be taken advantage of by the Defendant by applying to a court of competent jurisdiction to set aside and vacate said sale under said foreclosure, and to set aside and annul said Sheriff’s- conveyance of said premises to Plaintiff. See Greenleaf’s Evidence, Yol. 2, sec. 316 and note 1st, <md cases there cited.

Ai/7A~-Because said Defendant should not have been allowed to go behind said sale and said Sheriff’s certificate thereof, and indirectly attach Plaintiff’s title. See Chap. 85 R. S., See. 10; also the authorities above cited and the looks e/oerywhere on Ejectment.

Sixth — Said Court erred in giving judgment for Defendant without giving his decision in writing, and in such decision stating the facts found and the conclusions of law separately. Vide Chop. 71, see. 41, page 356 R. S; See also manuscript decision in this Court, TJllman vs. Bazille, and the anthorities therein referred to.

Seventh — Said judgment is erroneous, irregular and contrary to law and evidence.

Statement of the points and note of the authorities on which the Defendant relies:

First — It does not appear from the record that the Court below erred in rendering judgment for the Defendant.

None of the proceedings of the Court below except the pleadings and judgment have been returned, and they are sufficient.

The pleadings in this action present issues of facts on which if the cause had been tried by a Jury they could have brought in a general verdict.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress