Cited by

Freeman on Judgments, §§ 50—50c; *163 Freeman on Executions, §§ 2-4; Norton v. Beckman, 53 Minn. 456 , ; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , .

Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ; Collins v. Welch, 38 Minn. 62 , .

Witherspoon v. Duncan, supra; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , .

Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 209 , .

In Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , , there was an omission to insert in the proper column anything- to designate whether the figures constituted, dollars or cents; and it was held that there was nothing upon the face of the judgment to indicate with reasonable certainty what the figures were intended to represent, and that it contained no

Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , .

On the authority of Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , , the court below held that the decree of the probate court assigning the estate to the widow is conclusive, and vested absolutely in her all interest in the land.

Under G. S. 1894, §§ 5734, 5753, 5754, 5757, a certified transcript of the entries in the records and books in either the local or general land office, and certified copies of other documents in the same, are competent evidence (Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ); and, under section 5732, the officer may certify that he has made diligent examination in his office, and that the entries and documents so certified to by him are all of the records that can be found in his office pertaining to or referr

While this court held otherwise in the early cases of Parret v. Shaubhut, 5 Minn. 258 (323), and Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 199 (292), and while it did not at once squarely overrule these cases (see Ross v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 323 [438]), yet for many years the doctrine *242 of this court has been as above stated (Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ; Morton v. Leland, 27 Minn. 35 , ; Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ; Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 276 , ; Dobbin v. Cordiner, 41 Minn. 165 , ; Lydiar

It was held by this court in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( ,) that sales already had under such judgment could not be affected by amendment of the judgment.

212 ;) Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

German Land Ass’n v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 260 , (331;) Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 212 , (232;) Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

Thus in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

Defendant also makes the point that the mortgage, being given to' “Blake & Elliott,” a partnership, was ineffectual, and passed no interest in the land; and he cites Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 212 , (232,) and Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

In Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

The rule was recognized in Morrison v. Mendenhall ; and in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , is referred to as holding a contrary doctrine as to real estate mortgages; but while a distinction between the two classes of mortgages will readily suggest itself, there is nothing in that ease warranting the inference that if it were alleged and shown who composed a partnership in whose name a mortgage was taken

These views are not ihconsistent with the opinion of this court in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 .

The “notice for tax judgment,” as it is exhibited to us in the paper-book, does not present such defects as were held fatal in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 .

This does not conflict with the decision in Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 .