Anderson v. Gouldberg
53 N.W. 636, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 71, 51 Minn. 294 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who has acquired possession of property, even through a tortious act, has a superior title and right to that property against a subsequent taker who is a mere stranger to the property and cannot show a better title.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs trespassed upon the land of an unidentified third party.
- While trespassing, plaintiffs cut timber and took possession of the resulting logs.
- Defendants were not the owners of the land from which the logs were cut and had no legal claim to the logs.
- Defendants took the logs from the plaintiffs' possession.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs initiated a replevin action against the defendants in a trial court to recover possession of logs.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict establishing that the defendants were not the owners of the land from which the logs were cut.
- The trial court entered an order based on the jury's findings, presumably in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendants appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who obtained possession of property by trespassing on a third party's land have a superior right to that property over a subsequent possessor who has no claim of title whatsoever?
Opinions:
Majority - Mitchell, J.
Yes. A party who obtained possession of property by trespassing has a superior right to that property over a subsequent possessor who is a mere stranger to it. The court reasoned that possession itself is a form of title, good against the entire world except for those with a superior title, such as the true owner. A defendant who is a 'mere wrongdoer' cannot defend their own taking of property by pointing out that the plaintiff also acquired it wrongfully from a third party. To allow such a defense would be to invite 'an endless series of unlawful seizures and reprisals.' Citing the foundational case of Armory v. Delamirie, the court affirmed the principle that prior possession, even if wrongfully obtained, is protected against the acts of a subsequent wrongdoer who has no connection to the true title.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the core property law principle of relativity of title, prioritizing the rights of a prior possessor over those of a subsequent taker. It establishes that in a legal dispute between two parties who are both wrongdoers with respect to the true owner, the law will protect the prior possessor to maintain civil order and discourage self-help. This decision reinforces that a defendant in a replevin action cannot rely on a 'jus tertii' defense—arguing that a third party has a better title—unless the defendant can connect themselves to that third party's title. The ruling ensures stability by forcing claimants to prove their own superior right to property in court, rather than simply taking it from another possessor.
