McQuesten v. Commonwealth, 198 Mass. 172. After decree for petitioner, when
on appeal and trial by jury a verdict is given for respondent, petition must be
dismissed. Robinson v. Richards, 209, Blass. 295. A provision authorizing a
dismissal of application does not violate constitution. Peters v. Duluth, 119
Minn. 96. Court must dismiss application, on motion, without prejudice, upon
such terms as may be fixed by it. " The Torrens Act makes provisions for a
special proceeding * * * In a special proceeding, it being within the power
of the legislature to limit the jurisdiction of the court, the bounds of the court's
jurisdiction are to be found in the limitations of the act under which its juris-
diction is invoked. The legislature might have provided for a determination
of conflicting interests if it had been so inclined. But it did not do so. * * *
There is more or less difference in the Torrens Act as adopted in the several
States. Where, as in Illinois, no provision is made for a voluntary dismissal,
but the court is put to a final determination of the issue, it has been hekl that
the court may grant relief as to such portion of the land as the evidence shows
the title in fee to be in the applicant, and deny it as to the remainder. Glos
V. Holberg, 220 111. 167. But our law was drawn upon a different theory."
Krutz V. Dodge, 66 Wash. 178.
''Amendment of petition by substituting name of respondent for petitioner is
Illegal and void. " If the respondents had wished to become petitioners they
should have brought their own petition." Foss v. Atkins, 204 Mass. 337. Court
properly permitted answer to be amended. Kuby v. Ryder, 114 IMinn. 217.
