Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-10-14

valid judgment. Every final determination
of court ought to possess that degree of Ger.
tainty as to the thing adjudicated as to
admit of no reasonable doubt as to
Its meaning upon which persons of ordinary
intelligence or courts can differ. lts meaning
from facts either apparent or "aliundi''
the record, such % might lead
minds differently constituted to opposite or
different conclusions, and such is the doctrine
of tie State courts in Illinois and California.
Lawrence VS.. Fast, Goth ILL. 1888. Lawrence
v vs.. Boar da 2lst IL; l47: Epinger vs..
", Gath ILL.,, 2l0. Cock vs.. Norton, Ard ILL.,,
S9l. Brady vs.. Lamar, 33rd CAL, 6l0. People
vs.. Savings Union, 3lst CAL, 1872 Randolph
vs.. Metcalf, 9th CAL, 1907 Although the
soundness of the doctrine has, as we are
aware, been questioned and criticised, not
only by Justice Bruce in his dissenting opin-
Nevada and New Hampshire 1see State vs..
Eureka Consolidated Mining Co.. 8 New. Is. and
Oahoon VS.. Col, 81, N. b. 524) on the ground
that the true meaning of the numerals in the
connection used is 50 plain and explicit a. to
leave no just reason for difference of opinion
or construction . position which is sufficiently
refuted, rs it seems to us, by the fact that
learned courts and judges have so differed, and
still continue to differ.
The conclusion that we have thus reached
renders it unnecessary to consider the question
as to the legal effect of q tax judgment when
sought to be used or attacked in collateral
proceeding, for in this case no judg-
ments whatever have been rem
dered, the pretended judgments being
absolutely void upon their face. Neither is it
necessary to decide any other question present.
ed or discussed at the hearing of the appeal,
although wo cannot forbear the comment that
the description of the property as contained in
1nnDmnnfn in 20 hot n,,ohk
not to be followed by anyone at all careful of
aVoldlng ambiguity or uncertainty.
IL Is commended by respondents that it was
within the power of the court that rendered
tnese Judgments, upon proper application, to
nave amended them in respect to the defects
but sales already had under them could not be
aHected by such amendments. They must rest
upon the judgments as they then stood, and it
unauthorized and void then, no subsequent
amendments ne could give them validity.
Inc only remaining question important to
pc considered relates to the effect of the deed
from Woodbury. to todd, Gortop & Co.," and
the finding Of the court upon the evidence
as to the title of the plaintiff to the property
covered by the deed. 1t is conceded that the
grantee named in that deed was a partnership.
AS the legal title to real property can only be
neia by person or a corporate entity, which
Is deemed such in law, it follows that the con-
veYance in question vested no legal title or
estate in the grantee therein named, because
partnership as such is not recognized in law az
| person. (Parson on partnership 366, Nor
rlson VS.. Mendenhall, 18th Minnesota, 1891
The legal title to the prop
erty embraced in that CONVEYANCE
still remains in the grantor, though undoubt-
edly under trust for the sole use and benefit
OF the firm. While this may be such an eauit-
able estate or interest as would give to the
members of the partnership right to main
tain an action under the statute to determine
an adverse claim, it is not such a title as the
plaintiffs have relied upon in their complaint.
Besides we are unable to discover scintilla of
evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs, or
Ira N. dorton, were ever members of the firm
of Todd, Gorton & Co..
For these reasons the finding ard Judgment of
the court as to the lands embraced in this deed
are manifestly erroneous. and the Judgment
should be modified accordingly.
1t is therefore ordered that the Judgment of
the court below be 30 modified.
Charles Kirth and Hiram B. Cowles, appel
!ants, vs.. D. Wentworth Hayden, Charles
| Hayden, Charles B. Hayden and Samuel
Hayden, respondents.
Syllabus-Ina tax judgment in descrip-
ton of the land against which the Judgment
purports to:be rendered as 2, n "a and NV 4,
| sect D. Of a 0eaion tod soctinn <o-r.h;u 81