St. Louis County MN Archives Court.....Stearns, O. P. & Wife Vs Robert C. Ray & Mary E. Ray Ely 1874
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/mn/mnfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Debra Crosby http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00010.html#0002467 November 13, 2020, 4:19 am

Source: Duluth Minnesotian Sat May 09, 1874 Pg 3
Written: 1874

      DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS
Judge McKelvy denies the application of
the City of Duluth for a new trial in the
Ready Case--and decides for the Plaintiff
in the case of O. P. Stearns and wife vs.
            F. W. Ely, et.als.
   Two more decisions of cases submitted on
February term Court have been filed with 
the Clerk of the Court of this county by 
Judge McKelvy. The second is:
               _________
   O. P. Stearns and wife, vs. Frank W. Ely.
et. als. Action to quiet title. Ensign &
Stearns for Plaintiff, Setzer & Thompson
for Defendants. Tried by Court. Argued and
submitted.
   Action brought by Col. O. P. Stearns and
wife against F. W. Ely, Mary E. Ely and 
Robert C. Ray to quiet title to their homestead
on East Superior Street, Duluth; and to affirm
the validity of the guardian sale of said
property made by Jas. D. Ray as guardian of
Mary E. Ray (now Mrs. F. W. Ely) and Robert
C. Ray, and to forever bar the claims of adverse
parties to the property. Judge McKelvy, in a
lengthy decision, in which he reviews the whole
case decides for the plaintiffs.
   The following memorandum is attached to the
decision:
   The facts and conclusions of law in this case
involve the title to a large amount of valuable
property in addition to what is in immediate
controversey in this suit.  Whatever consclusions
of law this Court might arrive at I have taken it
for granted that the matter would finally have to
be decided by for the Supreme Court as it is 
possibly quite desirable it should be in a case
involving such important interests.  The facts in
the case have been found at length, and which in 
the 4th and 5th conclusions of law I may have erred,
it is satisfactory to know that if such be the case
it will be corrected in the Court of last resort.
   The following are the 4th and 5th conclusions
referred to in the memorandum:
   4th. That said guardian gave notice of the time
and place of sale, the real estate of which the land
mentioned and described in the complaint was a part
and portion, as prescribed in chapter 59 General
Statutes.
   5th. That said real estate was sold accordingly by
public action and the sale confirmed by the Court, and
that the land mentioned and described in the complaint
is held by the plaintiffs who purchased the same in 
good faith.


Additional Comments:


submitter is not related and has no further information

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/mn/stlouis/court/stearns10gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/mnfiles/

File size: 3.1 Kb