The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1890-05-01
MEMOIR ANDUM.


| do not think the evidence intt oduced
by the plaintiff sufficient to sustain the
the cause of action set up i'll his COM
plant.
The allegations in said complain ut that
the defendants, 7. c. Foster and Nancy ].
Foster his wife, were owners OF the land
in controversy at the time of the exc
cution bv them to the plaintiff of the
deed described in the complaint as having
been executed and delivered on the Oath
day of August, 1882, is not sustained by
the evidence: but, on the contrary. 1T APP
pears from such evidence that said land
then belonged to one Edward Oakford,
who did not part with his title thereto
until he conveyed the same to the defen-
dant Nancy J. Foster OIL the 3rd day OF
November, 1886, as alleged IN said com
paint. And the only evidence there is in
this case that by said first deed the said
Oakforil intended to convey, or that the
said defendant Nancy ]. Poster expected
to obtain TIE title to the land Ill con-
troversv, is found in the mere assertion
of the defendant ]. c. Foster, who acted
for the defendant Nancy J. Foster his
wife, in her purchase from Oakford, and
also in her said sale to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff does not claim that he did
not bv his deed from Mrs. Foster get the
full quantity of land he bargained for
a strip sixty feet wide-but only that
the tract described in his deed lies five
feet too f.rnorth. The testimony shows
that it was the intention of the parties
thereto that the said deed from Mrs
Foster to the plaintiff should convey the
south sixty feet Of land acquired by her
from Oakford, and no other.
This is evident from the descriptions III
in the two deeds above referred to. And
the plaintiff must therefore base his claim
for relief therein upon mistake made by
Oakfurd in his first conveyance to Mrs.
Foster but such mistake, If any, was
made by Oakford, cannot b, corrected IN
this a :ton.
If Mrs. Foster had been the owner OF
the land in controversy at the time OF
the said conveyance, by her, to the plain
tiff as alledgcd by her in the comp ant
or if as stated by J. c. Foster in his de-
position fbut not evidence in this case)
She after having become the owner OF
said land by her second deed from Oak
ford had decided said land to the plain
tiff, although such deed were subsequent
| to the deed under which. the defendant
Petit claims tile to said land, then in an
action to set aside the deed to Petit as
! fraudulent upon the evidence in this case
| the plaintiff might succeed.
But even if the error of the defendant
7. c. Foster, in pointing out the bound
| airy lines of the land conveyed by his wife
to the plaintiff, can be charged to said
defendant Nancy ]. Foster, which ]
doubt, still there is nothing in the testi-
mony to Justify the Court in reforming
her said deed to plaintiff, as basis for
granting the relief asked for in the COM
| plaint for there is nothing to show that
! by said deed Mrs. Foster did not convey
to the plaintiff the very land she intended
to-; and all that the evidence does show
| upon this point is that the defendant J.
c. Foster erred in pointing out the
boundary lines of the land conveyed by
his wife to the plaintiff, which said lines
could have been easily traced II either the
plaintiff or said ]. c. Foster had used any
care or thoroughness in their attempt te
find them The point of commencement
is by the description in the deeds referred
to clearly and definitely fixed. and from
it the boundary can easily be traced.
Iagree with the plaintiffs counsel il
the legal proposition he states In his brie
but do not agree with him in the view
he takes of the evidence, and am there
fore unable to see the application of tn
authorities cited by him In this case.
... L. L. B.