Minnesota Supreme Court, 1896

Brigham v. Paul

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 6, 1896 · Mitchell

64 Minn. 95; 66 N.W. 203; 1896 Minn. LEXIS 69 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Henry F. Greene, for appellants., Wm. A. Gant, 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 1933, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. (8th Cir. 1938)
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Page (Minn. 1933)
Union Central Life Insurance v. Page (Minn. 1933)
Peach v. Reed (Minn. 1902)

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

MITCHELL, J.

The record is insufficient to raise the questions argued by counsel for the defendants. There is neither case nor bill of exceptions, the record'containing nothing but the judgment roll, consisting of the pleadings, findings, and judgment. Hence, the only question presented is whether the findings of fact justified the conclusions of law.

The court finds that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of the premises described in the complaint, and that the allegations of the answer constituting defendants’ counterclaim of title are untrue. No other conclusion of law could be drawn from these findings than that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. It is true that the court does find the execution of a deed by the surviving members of the town council of Fond du Lac, purporting to convey the premises *96to the estate of Alexander Paul, defendants’ ancestor; also the existence and record of the deeds referred to in the eighth paragraph of defendants’ counterclaim, and that “they constitute a part of the chain of title upon which plaintiff relies.” But these special findings may all be true, and yet the general findings, above referred to, be also true. In the absence of any case or bill of exceptions, we must presume that the plaintiff introduced sufficient other evidence to establish his title. It should be noted that the last special finding is inaccurately printed in the paper book, the words “a part of” being omitted.

Judgment affirmed.

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