Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-07-13
THE COURTS.

Supreme Court, lpril Term, 1889.
The Winona & st. Peter Railroad Company,
appellant, vs.. Horace N. Randall, respond
ent
-. syliabus-This is an action in the nature of
ejectment. To maintain its title plaintiff in.
PRODUCED:
First-A copy certified by the state auditor
OF a certificate from the interior department,
certifying to the state a list of lands, embrac-
ing that In controversy, as being within 1.-THE
ten-mile limit granted to the state of Mime.
sofa by the act Of congress, approved the Sd of
March, 1865, to aid in the construction of
plaintiffs road.
Second-A deed executed by the governor
conveying the land in contest 10 plaintiff, and
containing full recitals showing plaintiffs
performance OF all things requisite to author
ize the execution of the same.
Third-A copy Certified by the register of
deeds OF Lyon county, where the land in dis
pute Les) of list of lands certified by the
state auditor and filed in said registers office,
pursuant to sec 80 to AZ inclusive, of Oh. 40,
G. s., 1878.
& Held, That in this state OF the plaintiffs
evidence, the list filed with the register of
deeds las proved by the copy is under sec.
Al, Oh 40, G. S. 1873, prin,G facie evidence of
title to the land in controversy,
which passed out of the United States as of
March 8, 1866, and to which plaintiff has sue.
ceeded under the governors deed. Defend
ants presumption settlement was made May,
1868, and his entry June l, 1872, as shown by
certificates such as are provided for in secs 81
and 81, Oh. IS, G.. 8. 1878, and are thereby
made prfmG tacte evidence of his title.
/ Held, That these certificates are prima .facte
evidence of a presumptiye right commenced
in May, 1868, and consummated in June, 1872.
Held further, That in this state of the evil
dence plaintiffs lille appears to be the eldst;
and therefore takes precedence of that of de-
PENDANT.
The order denying new trial is reversed,
and new trial awarded. BERRY, j.
John Mckenzie, respondent, VS.. The Missis-
sppi & Rum River Boom company, appel-
liant.
syllaDus-Weaver VS.. Mississippi & Rum
River Boom company. II N. W. report, la,
followed and applied.
Where on account of high stage of water
which may reasonably be expected to occur at
intervals OF few years Tor as in the present in
stance in two successive years. the lands ami
crops OF a riparian owner are without his
coD sent damaged by an overflow OF water oc-
casiOned by river boom, there Ia taking OF
tie land which cannot be justified by the own
er of the boom without compensation paid or
secured. ,sr
Johr NJ. Gilmore, Julius Austrian, and Sidney
Luce, respondents vs.. Walter Van Brunt, ap.
pellant.
Syllabus--To maintain an action to remove
a cloud from title to real estate, the alleged
cloud must be primG facte substantial. If the
facts which are relied on to constitute the
cloud are not such as per Sc to confer some
apparent right, title or interest In the property
but required to give them this apparent effect
the support of extrinsic facts which have nc
real or apparent existence, there is no cloud
Assignments by q county auditor in the
forms prescribed by sec. 129, ch. 1. laws 1874
and by sec. 10, CHI. 2, laws 1874, do not per Sc,
| create in favor OF the assignee any cloud upon
the title of one claiming to be the owner OF
the land to which such assignments relate.
Nor where no certificate of sale has been Is.
sued to the state, as provided in sec. 124, CHI
1, laws 1879, as amended by sec, 30, Oh. s.
laws 1875, and in sec. IA, oh. 2, laws 1874, dc
such assignments raise . any such cloud
when, upon looking at the proceedings an
tecedent TO the tax sale, it appears that the
court by which the tax Judgments
under which the tax sales were
had were rendered had no jurisdiction TO rem
der the same.
The judgment is accordingly reversed.
BERRY, j.