Case ID: minn_1/html/0211-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hoyt & Ames, Respondents, vs. Ira Sanford, Appellant.
    This was an Appeal from a judgment in the District Court of Ramsey County.
    
      The action was originally commenced before Truman M. Smith, Esq. a Justice of the Peace of Kamsey County, by complaint filed December 26th, 1853.
    The complaint sets forth that on the 7th day of May, 1852, one Lyman Dayton leased to Hoyt & Ames, for the term of five years, certain lands therein described, “ for the purpose of booming, hauling, rafting, securing and keeping logs and lumber, and removing the same therefrom,” &c. and reserving the right to the lessor to “ fill up and raise said land, for building purposes and other improvements.”
    That said Dayton was, at the date of said lease, the owner of said land, and that the Plaintiffs took possession thereof as tenants under said lease.
    That, afterwards, the Defendant Sandford entered said land, hauled and placed thereon certain logs, &c. to the damage of the Plaintiff in the sum of fifty dollars.
    The Defendant demurred to the complaint, because
    The Complaint recites a lease containing a reservation to the lessor of certain rights and privileges therein recited, and because the acts of the Defendant complained of are within the said reservation, and not inconsistent therewith: and because it does not appear that the Defendant is not the grantee of said Dayton, the Plaintiffs’ lessor.
    And because it does not appear that the acts of the Defendant were not done under a license from, and authorized by, said Dayton.
    And because the acts complained of are not inconsistent with and do not conflict with the Plaintiffs’ rights under the lease.
    The Justice sustained the demurrer, and the Plaintiffs refusing to amend their complaint, judgment was rendered against them for costs.
    The cause was afterwards removed to the District Court by Certiorari, where the judgment of the Justice was reversed with costs.
    Erom this judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
    Merritt Allen and Ames & Tan Etten, Counsel for Appellants.
    
      Masterson & Simons, Counsel for Respondents.
    [No “Points and authorities” are found with the files, and a judgment of Affirmance was entered by consent of Appelant’s Counsel, without argument.]