Minnesota Supreme Court, 1893

Inglee v. Welles

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 3, 1893

53 Minn. 197; 55 N.W. 117; 1893 Minn. LEXIS 300 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Little é Nunn, for appellants., C. G. Laybourn and Kellogg & Laybourn, 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 1995, 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.

Manderfeld v. Krovitz (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
State ex rel. Douglas v. Westfall (Minn. 1902)
McClymond v. Noble (Minn. 1901)
Phillips v. Tompson (Wash. 1913)
McGeagh v. Nordberg (Minn. 1893)

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

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the proof of publication of the notice of Us pendens with the summons is sufficient; also, that the nature of the action, and the nonresidence of the named defendant, Delia W. Godding, sufficiently appeared from.the affidavit for publication.

*199We are also of opinion that the mere fact that the named defendant was dead before the action was brought did- not prevent; the court from acquiring jurisdiction to determine the right of “persons or parties unknown” claiming an interest in the land described in the complaint.

These being all the objections to the judgment that are urged by the appellants, the order appealed from must be affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 117.)

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