Minnesota Supreme Court, 1871

Hurlburt v. Schulenburg

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1871 · McMillan

17 Minn. 22 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Wm. M. McCluer, for Appellants., Castle & Marsh, for Respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1897, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Hanke v. Myers (Minn. 1897)
Ross v. Evans (Minn. 1883)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

McMillan, J.

The complaint, after averring the partnership of the defendants, alleges that during all the time mentioned in the complaint the plaintiff was, and now is, the owner of certain real estate therein described; “that during the winter of 1868-9, without the consent of the plaintiff or of any person authorized to give such consent, Joseph Mitchell and Charles Mitchell, partners as Mitchell Brothers, unlawfully and wrongfully entered upon said lands, and cut therefrom certain pine trees, then and there standing, growing and being *23thereon, and converted them into logs, and removed them therefrom ; that said logs contained eighty thousand feet of lumber, board measure; that afterwards, and on or before the first day of July, 1870, said Mitchell Brothers drove said logs * * * into the boom of the St. Croix Boom Corporation, * * and then and there delivered said logs and all of them- to Schulenberg, Boeckeler & Co., the defendants;” alleges a demand on the 19th of July, 1870, by plaintiff upon defendants, and their refusal to deliver the logs or any part thereof. It also alleges an actual conversion of the property to their own use by defendants, and avers that the logs, at the time they were cut and removed from the land, as aforesaid, were and now are of 'the just value of ten dollars perthousand feet, and demands judgment for $800, with interest from the 19th of July, 1870.

The defendants demurred upon two grounds:

“ First — It appears from said complaint that there is a defect of parties defendants, Joseph Mitchell and Charles Mitchell being necessary parties to the full determination of said cause of action.

“Second — Said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants.”

The plaintiff moved to strike out the demurrer as frivolous, which motion the court granted, whereupon the defendants appealed from the order striking out the demurrer. The frivolousness of a demurrer must be determined upon the demurrer and the pleading to which it is interposed; if, from mere inspection of these, it can be determined that the pleading demurred to is good, the demurrer will be regarded as frivolous and be stricken out for that reason.

The cause of action alleged is in tort, and the trespassers are liable severally or jointly; all or any number of them may be joined in an action: the Mitchells were not, therefore, necessary parties to the action.

*24The facts stated in the complaint are clearly sufficient to con stitute a cause of action against the defendants.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.