Case Name: OSMAN AXDELL v. THOMAS TONNESSON
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1910-07-01
Citations: 111 Minn. 541
Docket Number: Nos. 16,617—(73)
Parties: OSMAN AXDELL v. THOMAS TONNESSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 541–541

Head Matter:
OSMAN AXDELL v. THOMAS TONNESSON.
July 1, 1910.
Nos. 16,617—(73).
'Complaint — demurrer.
A demurrer to a complaint by Osman Axdell in an action to determine the adverse claim of defendant under a docketed judgment against Osman Axtell, •which alleged the claim was “unfounded both in fact and in law,” was properly ■overruled. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Marshall county brought under section 4424, Tt. L. 1905, to determine the adverse claim of defendant under a certain judgment against Osman Axtell to certain vacant and unoccupied real estate.' The ■complaint alleged the adverse claim was unfounded both in law and fact. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. From an order, Grinde-Jand, J., overruling the demurrer, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Jens L. Lobben, for appellant.
Julius J. Olson, for respondent.
Reported in 120 N. W. 1134.

Opinion:
Per Ctjriam.
One Osman Axdell, plaintiff and respondent, brought this action against defendant and appellant, alleging that plaintiff owned certain land, defendant had recovered a judgment, fully described, against Osman Axtell, and claimed an adverse estate or interest, which was unfounded in fact or in law. The gist of defendant's demurrer was that plaintiff admits that [defendant] has a claim, and he also admits that such claim is "unfounded, both in fact and in law." Defendant, therefore, had no lien, and plaintiff was entitled to no relief. The similarity in the names "Axdell" and "Axtell" gave rise to the evil of which plaintiff justly and properly complained. The demurrer was properly overruled by the court. Affirmed.