Minnesota Supreme Court, 1916

Marchio v. City of Duluth

Marchio v. City of Duluth
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 7, 1916
133 Minn. 470; 158 N.W. 612; 1916 Minn. LEXIS 962 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John E. Samuelson, for appellant., W. H. Gurnee, 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 1917, 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

Marchio v. City of Duluth

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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.

Action hy plaintiff, claiming to he the owner of two lots in Duluth fronting on Commonwealth avenue, to recover damages to the lots caused hy a change of grade of the street. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict for plaintiff returned. Defendant appeals from an order denying a new trial.

The sole contention of the city on this appeal is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the title to the lots was in plaintiff. The answer denied plaintiff’s title, but the evidence was undisputed that plaintiff was in possession and had been for some time. In addition to the presumption arising from possession, plaintiff offered two deeds of the property to himself, *471under which, he went into possession, and he testified that he owned the lots. There was no offer to prove that he did not. The appeal is without merit.

Order affirmed.

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