6 Minn. 177 | Minn. | 1861
By the Oowrt —
This action was brought under that provision of our statute which authorizes any person in possession of real property by himself or tenant, to commence an action against any one claiming an adverse interest or estate therein, for the purpose of having such adverse estate or interest determined. Comp. Stat., 595, See. 1. The evident design of the legislature in passing this act, was to give to parties in possession of real property, the same facilities for testing the merits of adverse claims of title, that are always at hand for those who are excluded from the possession. but claim an estate therein adverse to that of the occupant. The latter may at any time, before they are barred by the statute of limitations, bring an action against the occupant to recover the possession of which they are deprived ; while the occupant, being in the enjoyment of all his rights, has, without the aid of the statute, no right of action until he has in some manner been interfered with. He would therefore have to await the leisure of those claiming adversely, and they may never urge their claims until the evidences by which the title of the occupant is established, or their own repelled, may become lost or obscured. To avoid such a contingency the statute authorizes the occupant to institute proceedings against any one claiming an adverse interest or estate, by which the party so claiming is forced at once, either to establish his claim, or abandon it altogether. Such being
“ We, the jury, find that at the time the deed was made by J. B. Hayles to Meighen, that Meighen had notice of a deed having been made by Hayles to Brockett.”
This verdict falls far short of determining “ the issues joined between the parties,” and yet, as appears by the record, the judgment for the Plaintiff is predicated wholly upon this finding. The verdict is not sufficient to warrant the judgment, so long as the issue as to the Plaintiff’s possession remains undisposed of. Eor we might admit all that is found by the jury, and even that the land had been conveyed to Brockett by an instrument sufficient in every particular ; and yet if the Plaintiff was not in possession, he could not maintain this action. The judgment is erroneous therefore in any aspect of the case. The issue as to the Plaintiff’s possession having been made, should have been determined in favor of one party or the other. If it was submitted to the jury, they should have passed upon it, and if it was not so submitted, it should have been decided by the Court.
The order of the Judge, refusing to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial is reversed, and a new trial awarded.