Jerolaman v. Gilliam
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 2016, 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
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Marjorie Gowan v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Kunza v. St. Mary's Regional Health Center (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
- Reserve Insurance v. Village of Big Lake (Minn. 1975)
- Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company (Minn. 1968)
- Johnson v. Harnisch (Iowa 1966)
- Pedersen v. Bring (Iowa 1962)
- Lund v. Village of Watson (Minn. 1961)
- Gronquist v. Olson (Minn. 1954)
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. (Minn. 1951)
- Shea v. City of San Bernardino (Cal. 1936)
- Martin v. Setter (Minn. 1931)
- Smith v. Mann (Minn. 1931)
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
Action in ejectment tried to the court. There was judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.
*243 1. The defendant was the owner of a certain lot 11 in Minneapolis. The plaintiff was the owner of an adjoining portion of lot 12. There is no question of their ownership.
The court found that the defendant was in possession of the portion of lot 12 owned by the plaintiff. Though the defendant urgently insists that this finding is not sustained by the evidence, we are unable to take his view. The evidence is confusing and a little indefinite but from it the court could find as it did.
2. A few years before the present action the defendant brought an action against the plaintiff to quiet title to lot 11. The plaintiff in this action, defendant there, disclaimed any interest. The complaint was the ordinary one to determine adverse claims, alleging the plaintiff Gilliam to be-in possession. The court found Gilliam to be the owner and further, which was not pleaded, that Jerola-man made claim to the property under a different description, and had ordered plaintiff to remove therefrom and deliver possession, but that since the action was commenced he had disclaimed any right in lot 11. Judgment was entered to the effect that the plaintiff there, Gilliam, owned lot 11. It is Gilliam’s contention that this judgment is res judicata upon the question-of plaintiff’s title or right to possession of lot 12. It does not have that effect. The controversy was as to lot 11. The parties have no controversy over ownership. The plaintiff owns the portion of lot 12 adjoining lot 11, and the defendant owns lot 11. Each is entitled to the possession of his own.
The defendant makes a number of other contentions with evident sincerity, and we have gone over them carefully. There is nothing calling for a discussion of them.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.