street, or by crossing it and going upon the unplatted part of his homestead, he could go from his dwelling house to every lot in the row remaining unsold, without leaving his own land. There was no dedication of any of the streets indicated on the plat in question, but, on the contrary, the plat bears upon its face the declaration that the streets, alleys, parks and wharves shown on the plat are not intended for public use or dedicated for public purposes or to be subject to public control, but are intended for private use, and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the proprietors. It follows, from the fact that the street along the end of the lots remained the absolute property of the plaintiff, that, unless his title to that part of the private street upon which the lots sold abut passed by his deeds to his grantees, the contiguity of the lots remaining unsold was not broken. An examination of the reservations in such deeds shows that no title in or to any part of the street passed to the grantees, but simply a right of way appurtenant to such lots for ingress and egress to and from them. Therefore the contiguity of the lots levied upon and the balance of the original homestead remaining unsold was not broken. The lots remained a part of the homestead and the defendant's judgments are not a lien on any of them. The fact that the sale of the lots left the homestead in a grotesque shape is not material, for this is not a case of the selection of a homestead out of a larger tract. See First National v. How, 61 Minn. 238, 63 N. W. 632. We have based our conclusion upon the fact that the streets shown on the plat were private ways, but we are not to be understood as holding that, if the plat had dedicated the streets to the public without limitation, the homestead being wholly outside of any municipality, our conclusion would be otherwise. We suggest no opinion on the question. Order affirmed. INDEX. ABANDONMENT. See Mining, 23; Railway, 105. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. What Constitutes-Consideration-Claim in Judgment against Estate ACCOUNT. -Rice v. London & Northwest American Mortgage Co., 77. See Arbitration, 248; Mechanic's Lien, 266. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT. See Principal and Surety, 84. ACTION. See Adverse Claims, 525; Bank, 298, 349, 358, 519; Conversion, 193, ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST. See Lost Deed, 312. ADVERSE CLAIM. Adverse Possession by Plaintiff-Sale of Undivided Interest by AGENCY. See Principal and Agent. AMENDMENT. See Principal and Surety, 486; Statute of Limitations, 50. ANIMAL. See Change of Venue, 186; Sale, 282. ANSWER. See Change of Venue, 186; Conversion, 528; Corporation, 303; Duluth ANSWER TO QUESTION. See Lost Deed, 312. APPEAL. From Probate Court-Disallowance of Claim-Sufficiency of Com- -Stuart v. Stuart, 46. Review-Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Findings-Cutting Logs. Review-Entry of Judgment-Error in Favor of Appellant-Action to -McLaughlin v. Nicholson, 71. Landlord and Tenant-Trial-Amendment to Answer-Review-Mo- Review of Evidence-Insufficient to Support Verdict-Hicks v. Stone, -Guthrie v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 237. Objection to Admission of Evidence Must State Precise Ground of -Johnson v. Okerstrom, 303. Assignment of Error-Objection to Evidence on Different Ground -Towle v. Sherer, 312. Order Authorizing Receivers of Insolvent Bank Appointed Under -Bank of Minnesota v. Anderson, 414. Cemetery-Order Appointing Committee in Condemnation Proceed- -Forest Cemetery Association v. Constans, 436. INDEX. APPEAL Continued. Order Denying Motion for Additional Findings Is Not Appealable. -Rogers v. Hedemark, 441. No Review on Appeal of Remark in Open Court Not Included in the -Smith v. Kingman & Co., 453. Assignment of Error-"Decision Not Justified by Evidence and Con- -Butler-Ryan Co. v. Silvey, 507. See Conversion, 95; Courts (District), 437; Duluth (City of), 378; In- ARBITRATION. Partnership-Accounting-Arbitration-Award-Supplemental Com- -Georges v. Niess, 248. ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. ASSAULT AND BATTERY. See Statute of Limitations, 50. ASSIGNMENT. See Usury, 380; Vendor and Purchaser, 467. ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. In re Fuller, 42 Minn. 22, Followed-Trust for Creditors-Release of -Mullen v. Ellington, 290. See Insolvency, 125, 183, 212, 393. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. See Appeal, 102, 312, 507; Principal and Agent, 122. ASSOCIATION. See Bank, 298. |