Bartleson v. Munson
| Decision Date | 07 August 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,737 - (208) |
| Citation | 117 N.W. 512,105 Minn. 348 |
| Parties | CHARLES J. BARTLESON v. STEWART C. MUNSON and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action brought in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover possession of one hundred sixty acres of land. The separate motions of defendants for dismissal on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action were denied by Charles L. Smith, J. The defendants thereupon pleaded guilty and demanded a jury trial. From the evidence it appeared that the title to real estate was involved and the case was transferred to the district court for Hennepin county where it was tried before Brooks, J., who dismissed the action as to defendant Florence Robinson and found in favor of plaintiff as against defendants David W. Parsons and Stewart C. Munson. From an order denying separate motions for a new trial, the last named defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer -- Transfer of Action.
An action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, transferred to the district court after it appears that the title to real estate is involved, is thereafter in substance and effect an action in ejectment.
Pleading -- Introduction of Evidence.
The plea of not guilty, which is proper in an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer in a municipal or justice court may, after the case is transferred to the district court stand as a general denial in an action in ejectment, and the defendant introduce thereunder any evidence which tends to disprove the facts alleged in the complaint showing the source and chain of plaintiff's title and right of possession.
Possession -- Estoppel Against Defendant.
An action in forcible entry and unlawful detainer can only be commenced against a person who is in possession of real property. But when the defendant entered into possession the day after the action was commenced, and was in possession on the return day, and appeared and admitted the allegations of the complaint respecting his possession, and after the transfer of the case to the district court remained in possession, and asserted and offered evidence to show his ownership of the property and right to possession thereof, he cannot thereafter, on appeal, be heard to contend that the original proceeding was invalid and ineffective because he was not in actual possession of the land when it was commenced.
Objection to Evidence.
An objection that certain evidence offered was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial does not raise the question of its admissibility under the pleadings.
Redemption by Lien Creditor.
The method provided by the statute for redemption by lien creditors is statutory and must be strictly pursued. Each creditor is entitled to redeem only in the order and during the period determined by the priority of his lien.
Redemption by Lien Creditor -- Order of Redemption.
The order in which lien creditors are entitled to redeem is determined by the priority of the liens as shown by the date of their record. Each redeeming creditor must pay the amount which the creditor from whom he redeems paid, and in addition thereto the amount of such redeeming creditor's lien, as shown by the record and affidavit which the statute requires to be made and filed.
Amount and Validity of Prior Liens.
A junior creditor, in order to redeem, must pay the amount shown by the record to be due. The statute provides no method by which he may determine the validity of prior liens or the proper amount thereof. He must pay according to the record, and if the lien is fraudulent, or the amount thereof padded, he must resort to other appropriate proceedings to recover any damages sustained by him thereby.
Priority of Liens.
The priority of liens for purposes of redemption is determined by the time of record, without reference to the nature of the estates in the land, or any part thereof, owned by the mortgagors.
Parsons & Bowler, for appellants.
Daniel Fish, for respondent.
On July 1, 1905, George R. Robinson, the owner of a farm of one hundred sixty acres of land situated in Hennepin county, and his wife, Florence Robinson, mortgaged the same to Helen Conhaim to secure the payment of the sum of $3,400. George R. Robinson died November 17, 1905. Conhaim foreclosed the mortgage, and on September 18, 1906, the property was sold to her in one parcel for $3,734.75. November 23, 1906, Conhaim assigned her sheriff's certificate to Fred Hodgdon. George R. Robinson's will was duly admitted to probate, and on January 29, 1906, letters testamentary were issued to his daughter, Georgia Robinson. On May 1, 1906, the south half of the farm was assigned to Florence Robinson as her homestead. March 23, 1907, the executrix under authority from the probate court conveyed the north eighty acres of the farm to her sister, Maud Robinson, for a consideration of $250. March 25, 1907, Maud mortgaged the north half and her remainder interest in the south half to George T. Halbert to secure payment of a note for $3,500. This mortgage was recorded March 30. In November, 1906, Frank L. Bowler secured a judgment on the mechanic's lien against a part of the premises. September 16, 1907, Florence Robinson, the widow, mortgaged her life estate in the south half of the land to the appellant Parsons to secure a note for $8,402.82, and the mortgage was recorded September 18, 1907. September 3, 1907, Maud Robinson mortgaged the north half of that land to Charles J. Bartleson to secure the payment of a note for $80, and this mortgage was recorded on September 18, 1907.
No redemption was made by any one as owner from the foreclosure sale under the Conhaim mortgage. September 18, 1907, the last day of the year allowed by the statute to owners to redeem, Halbert, Parsons, and Bartleson each filed with the register of deeds due and proper notice of his intention to redeem from the foreclosure sale as a creditor having a lien upon the premises by virtue of his respective mortgage. On the same day Bowler filed a like notice of intention to redeem under the mechanic's lien judgment. September 23, 1907, Bowler, the senior lien creditor, redeemed and succeeded to all of Hodgdon's rights in the land. On September 28, 1907, within the second five days, Halbert redeemed by paying $4,151 to the sheriff of Hennepin county, and received from him a certificate of redemption, which was on September 30, 1907, duly filed and recorded. On October 7, 1907, Bartleson redeemed by paying $7,788.63 to the sheriff of Hennepin county, and received from him a certificate of redemption, which was duly filed and recorded. On September 24, Parsons paid Bowler the sum of $4,125, and Bowler executed and delivered to Parsons a certificate of redemption, which was filed and recorded on the same day.
The consideration for the $3,500 note and mortgage given by Maud Robinson to Halbert was $250 in cash and the execution and delivery to her by Halbert of his negotiable promissory note for $3,250. When Maud Robinson gave Halbert the $3,500 mortgage, she entered into a written contract which recited that Halbert had loaned her $250, to be used in purchasing the eighty acres of land in question other than the homestead eighty, subject to the Conhaim mortgage, which had been foreclosed, and that Maud Robinson should give to Halbert a mortgage on the lands to secure the payment of a note for $3,500. Halbert agreed to take steps to have the owners redeem the premises from the foreclosure sale; but, if no such redemption was made, he was to redeem as a lien creditor. If by this means he acquired title, the note and mortgage given him by Maud Robinson for $3,500 was to be fully paid and satisfied thereby. If the owners redeemed, the mortgage to Halbert was to stand as security for the $250 and other sums actually advanced, and the $3,250 was to be applied on the payment of the $3,500 note. If Halbert acquired title by redemption, or if the note and mortgage for $3,500 was paid by the redemption over Halbert's redemption by a subsequent lien creditor, Halbert was then to pay the $3,250 note which he had given Maud Robinson.
Bartleson claiming that Parsons had not redeemed, because his payment to Bowler was out of order, his lien being junior to that of Halbert, and the subsequent tender to Halbert insufficient in amount, commenced an action in forcible entry and unlawful detainer against Munson and Parsons in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis. When this action came on for hearing, Munson and Parsons appeared and entered pleas of not guilty. After some evidence had been taken it appeared that title to real estate was involved, and the case was thereupon certified to the district court as required by the statute. In that court the defendants moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The motion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial