The Mankato free press., 1921-12-23
SUPREME COURT OPINION

Order 10 Handed Down u Ise
Ed~ssrd X. Beise Ex Rel
The Minnesota State Supreme court
has handed down an order In tne
case of State OF Minnesota ex lei
Edward II. Beise and Leonard L Beise
REALTORS, versus The District Court OF
Blue Earth County, Minnesota, and
Hon. w. L. Comstock, judge tnereoi'
respondents. The syllabus is as foi-
lows:
On the facts stated In the opinion the
action il held to involve the title TO reai
property situated in Blue Earth county
and to be trialls IN that county.
Let a peremptoy vIit issue as prayed.
The opinion Is as foRoUs:
This Is a procedure to secure, upon the
petition Of Edward H and Leonard l.
Beise. father and SON. writ Of man
Blue Earth county to retain the action
hereinafter referred to for trial in that
On december 6, 1920. the rs,ator. Ed
ward H Beise, brought an action IN the
district court Of Blue Earth county
asainst Burt !. Weld. Maud x We,d; end
Leonard L. Beise, to determine adverse
claims to COS acres OF land In Blue Earth
county, under section $3.50. G. s. 1913
Piaintiff resides in Blue Earth. defendant
Beise In Hennepin and the other defend
ants in Murray county, this state. Tne
defendants residing in Murray county
changed to that county where q majority
of the defendants reside. under section
7715. G. S. 1918 The court granted the
change; but the files have not been
The complaint is in the usual form to
determine, adverse claims to real estate
The Murray county defendants answered
in the defendants Burt Weld and
Peter G. Sorenson, under a warranty
deed. and denying the alieYah0ns OF tne
complaint. The defendant Beise ans
wered separately alleging that he is the
owner of an undfdvided cne-hAn interest
in said Land under warranty deed. The
Murray county defendants setting forth
various transactions Of fraud. bad faith;
conspiracy, etc. on the part OF Weld and
sSlshs0h shieh they " etai@ title denying the al
legations Of their answer, and demandang
Judgment rs prayed for In his complaint.
The tsa. s5sgaopS OF tine ssp a5s sns foer samr
action between the same parties before
this court and reported in 14s Minn. az
The Question Is, whether the subject Of
the actioa Ii f0cal, as distinguished from
those partly local and partly uansitory.
That ID, II the subject matter Of the ac-
tion 10 situated in county other tnan
primary and principal relief sought re-
latSs 70 yucn sos1ec. .nse.Ss, a.. 80 -
acu9n pel anu NUS 1h % 80, s,,,,ssct Ss
n,Nttar .Sg IN :, s;.,,atad Stase aS "a y Ms
az. selcl III. Va Sy 8s,rstt - n a.
H;nn s5e
mtnn. Sn..,sn ~. 71,k r ,e,s n,oxkHes that.
=. sec,on ...o, ". . 10, oI .S.te
"a Ac1ons t,c,,,a ~, e =, rnast 80 M - osj,e,
;iHr sr tS,e,so. the nsrtst}or therea< the
1S.IsIsssn, IN Sas ;r .rv 49,, ~ an sstsfe
oe's1 lnauoM III any m ~ IL % 1ssJ n !. the
~ t NE - use,ut n,,at aa1 .eSt.,a or sor,e
coun'y Mnese sue. .x.,,staS TInSer this
p.a.,,. sne. -, assa*., ~. s.,niact
statute wneis raI e.Ie - 1;;S'ee IS Sy''
M%atter ma an scs'1 ~ ~ Ia tis,p - pttac.e az.
nei me-. souenI -. ks,wLt " ~ ~ +.;sd =, the
acuon mus De ,s.n,...tn .n1 ,s s,tn.teS
county Wnef9 Lns psopefS ~.
hommeI y g. 1S Hs1I1 AZ,
H'eWr Iaa .Tj,eek; 6sfrict Csourt- fso