Minnesota Supreme Court, 1906

National Bond & Security Co. v. Alderson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 27, 1906 · Brown

99 Minn. 137; 108 N.W. 861; 1906 Minn. LEXIS 392 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thomas R. Kane and O. H. O’Neill, for appellant.', William G. White, 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 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Peters v. City of Duluth (Minn. 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

BROWN, J.

In proceedings to register title under the Torrens act, applicant relied upon an unrecorded deed from the conceded owner of the land sought to be registered, and he asked to have determined the priority Of certain tax liens. Judgment was given for the applicant in the court below, and the state appealed. .

It is insisted that applicant was without standing or right to maintain the proceeding, for the reason that his title was not of record at *138the time it was commenced; his deed from the conceded owner not having at that time been recorded. We do not concur in this contention. The Torrens act provides that the “owner” may have his title registered by proceeding in the manner therein directed, and, though some provisions thereof seem to justify the suggestion that the applicant must be the record owner, it would require a strained construction to hold with the state on this point, and say that none but those who appear upon the records as owners of real property are entitled to the relief provided by the act. So we construe the act as entitling any owner of land, whether his title be of record in the office of the register of deeds or not, to maintain proceedings thereunder to register his title.

All other points made by appellant are disposed of by the opinion of Mr. Justice Lewis in Gates v. Keigher, infra.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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