Case ID: minn_53/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert B. Whitesides et al. vs. Andreas M. Rutan.
    Submitted on briefs April 26, 1893.
    Affirmed June 16, 1893.
    Soldier’s Right to Additional Land under II. S. Rev. Stat. § 2306, is Assignable.
    
      Webster v. Luther, 50 Minn. 77, followed.
    Appeal by defendant, Andreas M. Rutan, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, J. D. Ensign, J., made July 28, 1892, denying his motion for a new trial.
    The action was to determine adverse claims to lot six (6) in section thirty (30,) and lot three (3) in section thirty-one (31,) T. 63, R. 12, in St. Louis County. The lands are vacant and unoccupied. On March 18, 1881, Wesley Hunt and wife, of Allen County, Kansas, gave a power of attorney to Ralph N. Marble, of Duluth, authorizing him to enter eighty acres for Hunt as an additional homestead, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 2306, and to sell and convey the land when entered, and receive the consideration. On October 10,1888, Marble entered in Hunt’s name the land above described, and received the certificate of the receiver at the H. S. local land office. On the same day he, as such attorney, made and delivered a deed thereof in the name of Hunt and wife to the plaintiffs, Robert B. Whitesides and Frederick W. Paine. The patent was issued and bore date July 23,1890.
    Afterward, on October 4, 1890, Hunt and wife made a quitclaim deed of the same land to the defendant. The object of this action was to have the claim of defendant under this quit-claim deed adjudged invalid. The trial court so held, and defendant appeals.
    
      J. L. Washburn and Twomey é Morris, for appellant.
    
      Jaques & Hudson, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The points raised in this case are identical with those considered and determined in the case of Webster v. Luther, 50 Minn. 77, (52 N. W. Rep. 271,) after full argument. This case must therefore be held to be governed by that, and the judgment of the trial court in accordance therewith is accordingly affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 540.)