Parker v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
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
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Burgmeier v. Bjur (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
- State Ex Rel. City of Miles v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Mont. 1930)
- Guild v. Prentis (Vt. 1910)
- Atwater v. Spalding (Minn. 1902)
- Trustees of Iowa College v. Baillie (Iowa 1945)
- Raleigh, Charlotte & Southern Railroad v. Mecklenburg Manufacturing Co. (N.C. 1914)
- Chiesa & Co. v. City of Des Moines (Iowa 1912)
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
It was perfectly proper in this action in ejectment for the plaintiff to allege in his complaint that he was the owner of the real property in question. The word “owner” includes any person who has usufruct, control, or occupation of real estate, whether his interest in it is an absolute fee, or an estate for years under a lease. 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. 299, and citations. The plaintiff was a tenant for a term of years, and this term had not expired when the defendant wrongfully dispossessed him, according to the allegations in the complaint. There was no inconsistency between the allegations as to ownership in the pleading, just mentioned, and the reply, wherein plaintiff admitted that he was defendant’s tenant, as alleged in the answer. Nor was there any variance. The action was brought to recover possession of real property, and, to maintain it, a possessory title was all that was needed. The court below ruled correctly, and the case of Merrill v. Dearing, 47 Minn. 137, 49 N. W. 693, relied on by counsel for defendant, is not at all in point.
Order affirmed.
LOVELY, J., having been of counsel, took no part.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.