Parker v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
DANIEL G. PARKER v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
COLLINS, J. 1
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.