Vawter v. Crafts

Decision Date04 June 1889
Citation42 N.W. 483,41 Minn. 14
PartiesVAWTER v CRAFTS.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A mortgage upon a tract of land to secure payment of a sum of money at certain dates contained an agreement that the mortgagor should plat the land into 100 lots, of uniform size, and that the mortgagee should release any of the lots when thus platted, upon payment of a specified sum for each lot. The mortgage also contained the usual condition that, in case of default in any of the covenants or conditions of the mortgage, the mortgagee might sell the mortgaged premises, and out of the proceeds retain the amount due on the mortgage. Held, that the covenant as to partial releases ran with the land, and inured to the benefit of the grantee of the mortgagor, who purchased one of the lots into which the land was platted; also that the right to a release was not terminated by a default in the payment of the sum secured by the mortgage, but continued in force until the mortgagee had fully executed the power by sale of the mortgaged premises.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; YOUNG, Judge.

Action by Eliza M. Vawter against Amasa Crafts, to procure a release of land from a mortgage. Plaintiff appeals.

Little & Nunn, for appellant.

Julius E. Miner, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This appeal presents the following state of facts: Monroe Bros. and Foster, the owners of a 20-acre tract of land, on February 25, 1882, executed a mortgage on it to defendant for the payment of $11,250, as follows: $3,250 on or before three years, $4,000 on or before four years, and $4,000 five years from date, and interest thereon according to the conditions of three promissory notes. The mortgage contained the usual provision that, if default should be made in the payment of said sum or interest, or any part thereof, at the times specified, the mortgagee was authorized to sell the mortgaged premises agreeably to the statute, and out of the proceeds retain the principal and interest due on said notes, and all taxes on the land, together with costs and charges, etc., and pay the overplus, if any, to the mortgagors. It also contained the following provision: “It is understood and agreed by and between the parties to this instrument that the above-described land shall be platted into not less than one hundred lots, of uniform size, and that the party of the second part shall release any of the lots in the north half of said land upon the payment of $140 each, and any of the lots, when platted as aforesaid, in the south half of said land, upon payment of $85 for each lot.” In accordance with this agreement, the mortgagors platted the land into one hundred lots, and afterwards, from time to time, the larger part of the lots were released, until on July 16, 1888, there remained unreleased only eight lots, including the two then and now owned by plaintiff; and there remained due on the mortgage a balance of $1,215 for principal, interest, and taxes. The plaintiff acquired her two lots (which are in the south half of the land) through conveyances from the mortgagors, at what time does not appear, except that it was prior to July 16, 1888. Default having been made in the mortgage, defendant, on the date last named, proceeded to foreclose under a power, and advertised all the unreleased lots (including plaintiff's) for sale on September 10th. On the 4th day of September plaintiff tendered defendant the sum of $170, with interest and costs of foreclosure proceedings, amounting in all to $261, and demanded a release of her lots. This the defendant refused to give, unless she paid the whole amount due on the mortgage; whereupon plaintiff brought this action to compel a release offering to pay therefor $170, and such further sum as the court might find due on the lots.

The case turns entirely upon the force and effect to be given to this agreement regarding partial releases. It must be conceded at the outset that this mortgage is not the same in all respects as those considered in Hull v. King, 38 Minn. 349,37 N. W. Rep. 792, and Mason v. Goodnow, ante, 482, (decided at the present term.) It is a single mortgage on the whole tract, to secure the full sum of $11,250, but with the privilege or right to the mortgagors, after platting the land, to have any lot released upon payment of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Eldridge v. Burns
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 3, 1978
    ...by the payment of a stipulated sum, is available after default in payment and the commencement of a foreclosure suit: Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn. 14, 42 N.W. 483; Gammell v. Goode, 103 Iowa 301, 72 N.W. 531; Nims v. Vaughn, 40 Mich. 356; Chrisman v. Hay (Iowa), 43 F. 552. . . . [p] It will b......
  • Simonson v. Z Cranbury Associates, Ltd. Partnership
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 4, 1997
    ...was claimed by a third-party purchaser. See, e.g. Norris v. Schwartz, 114 Fla. 248, 153 So. 910, 910 (1934); Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn. 14, 42 N.W. 483, 485 (1889); Rosenberg v. General Realty Serv., 231 A.D. 259, 247 N.Y.S. 461, 464 (1931); White v. Tegnell, 206 S.W. 213, 215 (Tex.Civ.App.......
  • Kerschensteiner v. N. Mich. Land Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 4, 1928
    ...by its terms extended to the assigns of the parties; this included defendant. Erichsen v. Tapert, 172 Mich. 457 . In Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn. 14 (42 N. W. 483), a case cited with approval by this court in Commercial Bank v. Hiller, 106 Mich. 118 , it was held that covenants such as we hav......
  • Harris County Houston Ship C. Nav. Dist. v. Williams, 10130.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 1, 1935
    ...that of Texas, supports the rule as here stated. 93 A.L.R. at pages 1027 to 1041; Jones on Mortgages (7thEd.) par. 79; Vawter v. Crafts, 41 Minn. 14, 42 N.W. 483; Gammel v. Goode, 103 Iowa, 301, 72 N.W. 531; Chrisman v. Hay (C.C.) 43 F. 552; Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co., 24......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT