Minnesota Supreme Court, 1884

Melin v. Reynolds

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 19, 1884 · Berry

32 Minn. 52; 19 N.W. 81; 1884 Minn. LEXIS 79 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

J. W. Reynolds, for appellants., L. G. Spooner and G. M. Stevens, 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 1923, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

First National Bank of Herman v. Cargill Elevator Co. (Minn. 1923)
Hagen v. Dwyer (N.D. 1917)
Riddle v. Dow (Iowa 1896)

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

Berry, J.1

' “One-half of all the crop growing” on certain described lands means one undivided half of such crop, and, as a description (in a chattel mortgage) of the property mortgaged, is sufficiently definite. The plaintiff, as mortgagee, after condition broken, of an un*53divided half of the crop, was a tenant in common of the whole with the owner of the other half, and therefore entitled to the possession of the whole, or of any part of it, as against mere strangers like defendants, not appearing to have any right or interest in or to any part of such crop. To them it is of no consequence who owns the other undivided half, or whether the mortgage was made in good faith or not. Miller v. Darling, 22 Minn. 303.

The defendants’ objections to the complaint, and the demurrer in support of which they were interposed, were clearly frivolous, and on that ground the demurrer was properly stricken out.

Order affirmed.

Dickinson, J., because of illness, took no part in this decision.

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