Radley v. O'Leary
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 1950, 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
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dahlberg v. Young (Minn. 1950)
- Schwartz v. Murphy (D.C. Cir. 1940)
- Andrus v. Dyckman Hotel Co. (Minn. 1914)
- Twitchell v. Cummings (Minn. 1913)
- Sorenson v. Torvestad (Minn. 1905)
- Malarkey v. O'Leary (Or. 1899)
- Seeger v. Smith (Minn. 1898)
- Herrick v. Newell (Minn. 1892)
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
This is an action to recover leased premises, for nonpayment of rent, and is brought, not, as defendant appears to suppose,, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 33, but under Gen. St. 18-78, c. 84, § 11, which relates to forcible entries and unlawful detainers. This statement disposes of much of defendant’s brief, especially of that part relating to notice to quit.
Either the case was not tried in a workman-like manner, or the return of the justice does not accurately state what took place on the trial; but, nevertheless, we can gather from the evidence that plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to. the possession of the premises, and that defendant, a lessee in possession, was holding the same without paying the rent after it had become due according to the terms of his lease, and had been duly demanded. This state of facts entitled plaintiff to judgment awarding her possession.
There is nothing in the point that the justice had no jurisdiction, because title to real estate was involved in the proceedings before him-The evidence tending to show title, and consequent right of possession,, in plaintiff was not disputed. It did not then appear from the evidence that the title to real estate was involved, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the justice, and make out a ease for certification to the-
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.