Quaschneck v. Blodgett

Decided October 9, 1915

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1915-10-09

Allen, J. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, defendant Blodgett appeals. Where possession of land is consistent with the record title, it is presumed to be under such title, and is not notice of outstanding unrecorded equities. Smith v. Yule, 31 Cal. 180, 89 Am. Dee. 167; Dutton v. McBeynolds, 31 Minn. 66, 16 N. W. 486; Townsend v. Little, 109 U. S. 504, 27 L. ed. 1012, 3 Sup. Ct. Bep. 357; Williams v. Sprigg, 6 Ohio St. 585.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1959

2 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1915-10-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *617On Petition for Eehearing.

Per Curiam.

¶2After the foregoing opinion was filed, appellant’s counsel presented a petition for a rehearing upon propositions numbered 2 and 5, and the prayer of such petition was granted, and these two propositions have again been exhaustively argued both orally and in briefs. We have expended much time in a consideration of the questions thus reargued, and we still entertain the views set forth in our first opinion. It would serve no useful purpose to elaborate upon the reasons there given for our conclusions as announced in the former opinion. The order therein made is adhered to.