Cited by

193 , 208 P. 295 , 23 A. L. R. 965, and Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7; but it is to be noted that both cases relate to occupants who, at the time the original registration was decreed, were not made parties thereto, and hence could attack the decree.

See, In re Application of Juran, 178 Minn. 55 , ; Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7.

Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7.

198 ; Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , 139 N.W.

Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7, involved a proceeding under the so-called Torrens act to register title to land in the city of St.

*336 We have recognized the fundamental principle here involved in other cases, as, for example, in Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7, where the applicant for registration of title to real property failed to disclose to the court in the petition for registration of title, as required by statute, the names of persons known to him to have an interest in the property, and such persons were not named in the proceeding

There is therefore no mistake or fraud apparent on the judgment roll indicating lack of jurisdiction in the registration proceedings as was the case in Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7.” *106 The only real grievance asserted in the answer tendered is that the attorney for Eees in the registration proceeding did not use due diligence in ascertaining that Dean held a deed to the property from the record owner of the government title, who was made a party to the proc

There is therefore no mistake or fraud apparent on the judgment roll indicating lack of jurisdiction in the registration proceedings as was the case in Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , 139 N.W.

Riley v. Pearson, supra [ 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7].

In Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7, cited by appellant, an attack Avas made in one registration proceeding upon the certificate in another and previous proceeding relating to adjoining and conflicting property interests, and it was held that the previous certificate Avas not binding upon the applicants in the later p

Douglas v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437 , , 57 L. R. A. 297, 89 A. S. R. 571; Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 A. S. R. 394; Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7; Henry v. White, 123 Minn. 182 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 4; Abrahamson v. Sundman, 174 Minn. 22 , .

193 , 208 P. 295 , 23 A. L. R. 965, and Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7; but it is to be noted that both cases relate to occupants who, at the time the original registration was decreed, were not made parties thereto, and hence could attack the decree.

The alley was under consideration in Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 7.

394; Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , .

See also Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , .

Mr. Justice Bunn has recently delivered an opinion upon a kindred question in Riley v. Pearson, 120 Minn. 210 , , and the reasoning of that case is applicable here, as is also that of Baart v. Martin, 99 Minn. 197 , , 116 Am.