Walton v. Perkins
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 1896, 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
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sexton v. Sutherland (N.D. 1917)
- Alt v. Graff (Minn. 1896)
- Power Co. v. . Power Co. (N.C. 1918)
- Carolina-Tennessee Power Co. v. Hiawassee River Power Co. (N.C. 1918)
- Christman v. . Hilliard (N.C. 1914)
- Tinsley v. Atlantic Mines Co. (Colo. App. 1904)
- Tinsley v. Atlantic Mines Co. (Colo. App. 1904)
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
“An action may be brought by any person in possession, by himself or his tenant, of real property, against any person who claims an estate or interest therein, or lien upon the same, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate, lien or interest.” Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 2. If we understand the appellant correctly, his contention is that it is only interests, estates, or liens claimed to be derived from the same source as the title of plaintiff, which can be determined in an action under this statute. Such a construction finds no support in either the letter or spirit of the statute, and is contrary to the uniform practice in this state from the earliest date. This statute is intended to afford an easy and expeditious mode of determining all conflicting claims to land, whether derived from a common source or from different and independent sources.
The case of Banning v. Bradford, 21 Minn. 308, cited by appellant, has no bearing upon this case. What is there decided is that one claiming adversely to the title of the mortgagor cannot be made a party to a suit to foreclose the mortgage, for the purpose of trying his adverse title in that suit, he being a stranger to the mortgage and the mortgaged estate, and having no interest in the subject of the action.
The judgment that the mortgage under which defendant claimed his lien was null and void as against the plaintiff, and constituted no lien on the premises, was in proper form.
Judgment affirmed.
Berry, J., was absent and took no part in this case.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.