52 N.W. 864 (Minn. 1892), Todd v. Johnson
|Citation:||52 N.W. 864, 50 Minn. 310|
|Opinion Judge:||Gilfillan, C. J.|
|Party Name:||William P. Todd v. Albert Johnson et al|
|Attorney:||Edward Savage, for appellant. Healy & Miller, for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Gilfillan, C. J. Mitchell, J., dissenting. Mitchell|
|Case Date:||June 27, 1892|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Minnesota|
June 10, 1892, Argued
Appeal by Andrew J. Finnegan, one of the defendants, from a judgment of the District Court of Kandiyohi County, Powers, J., entered October 28, 1891, quieting and confirming the title of plaintiff, William P. Todd, to eighty acres of land in Meeker County.
Ole Eidem owned the land and on April 15, 1876, mortgaged it to George F. Snow with power of sale in case of default in payment of the debt secured. He made default, and the land was sold by the sheriff under the power February 1, 1879, pursuant to notice, and was bid in by Snow. The mortgagor failed to redeem, but his judgment creditors filed the notices and took the proceedings stated in the opinion. The plaintiff claims under these redemptions. The defendant Finnegan claims under Snow, contending that no valid redemption was ever made.
Although both the redemptioners in this case professed to redeem as judgment creditors, there is no evidence that either of them was a creditor, or ever obtained a judgment. The first step in proving a lien is to show the existence of a judgment; the second, to show that it is docketed. Rockwood v. Davenport, 37 Minn. 533; Jackson v. Hasbrouck, 12 John. 213; Sinclair v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 543; Baker v. Kingsland, 10 Paige, Ch. 366.
It was not shown that Mackay had any judgment lien on this land, or that he filed a sufficient notice of intention to redeem this land; nor did he obtain the certificate required by the statute. The certificate of redemption did not state the amount claimed to be due on his judgment at the time of redemption. Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 496, (Gil. 441;) Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531; Tice v. Russell, 43 Minn. 66; Miller v. Lewis, 4 N.Y. 554; Buchanan v. Tracy, 45 Mo. 437; Smith v. Buse, 35 Minn. 234; Nelson v. Central Land Co., 35 Minn. 408; Greve v. Coffin, 14 Minn. 345, (Gil. 263.)
Plaintiff was not proving his judgment in this action. He was establishing the relation of debtor and creditor between Mackay and Eidem. That was one of the links in the chain of title. Herrick v. Ammerman, 32 Minn. 544.
The notice of intention to redeem filed by Mackay was insufficient, but redemption was actually made and Snow received and has retained the money. The object of the notice was to fix the order in which the parties were to exercise the right of redemption and this object was accomplished. Atwater v. Manchester Sav. Bank, 45 Minn. 341.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP