Godfrey v. Valentine
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 1912, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bracken v. Trones (Minn. 1912)
- Tew v. Webster (Minn. 1908)
- Phillips v. Mo (Minn. 1905)
- McRoberts v. McArthur (Minn. 1897)
- Schons v. Village of Kellogg (Minn. 1895)
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 court has always construed the statute relating to a second trial of actions (.1878 G. S. ch. 75, § 11) as giving such right only in actions which, whatever their form, are in substance actions in ejectment; that is, for the recovery of possession. Had the statute intended to give it in all actions where the title to real estate is involved and is determined, it would have used different language. No doubt an action to determine adverse claims may become an action in substance similar to ejectment if the plaintiff be in possession, and the defendant demand, on the allegations of his answer, judgment for possession.
This action is merely one to determine adverse claims. Neither party asks judgment for recovery of possession. Neither.could, on the allegations of his pleading, ask such a judgment, — the plaintiff, because he alleges himself to be in possession; the defendant, because he alleges the premises to be vacant and'unoccupied.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.