Olivier v. Gurney
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 1904, 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.
- Mahlum v. Thayer (Minn. 1904)
- McQuade v. Jaffray (Minn. 1891)
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
The question involved here is the validity of the tax-title claimed to have been acquired by the defendant to the lands in controversy. One ground upon which it is attacked is that the published list does not contain a correct description of such land. The land in controversy is correctly described in the county auditor’s list of delinquent taxes for the year in question as follows:
In whose name assessed. Subd. Sec. Town. Range. No. acres. Tax.
II. D. Gurney. Lot 3 8 32 21 233/4 1 71
But in the published list, as shown by the return, the description relied on appears at the head of the tenth column thereof, as follows :
Name. Lot. See. Acres. Amt.
Guernsey, H. D. 3 8 233/4 1 71
Other descriptions follow; and lower down in the same column, and extending across it, appeared “Town 32, Bange 22,” and at the bottom of the ninth column appeared, in like manner: “Town 32, Bange 21.” The return fails to show the location of other townships and ranges on the list, and'does not show that any were placed at the head of the list; but it is expressly stated that after the notice the list proceeds as follows:
“Names of owners. Subd. of sec. Sec. Acres. Amt.”
The point made that the published list is not a correct copy of the list filed, and that upon the list itself, as published, as shown by the return, it does not appear with sufficient certainty in which township or range the lands are included, must be held to be well taken. This, we think, is not covered by the explanatory recital that the town and range were printed across the column in separate lines, and that under such lines appeared the subdivision of the section. This would
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.