Berryhill v. Smith

• Decision Date: 07 December 1894
• Docket Number: No. 8750.,8750.
• Citation: 59 Minn. 285
• Parties: MARGARET L. BERRYHILL <I>vs.</I> HOWARD L. SMITH, <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

59 Minn. 285

MARGARET L. BERRYHILLvs.

HOWARD L. SMITH, et al.

No. 8750.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Submitted on briefs October 23, 1894.

Affirmed December 7, 1894.

Appeal by plaintiff, Margaret L. Berryhill, from a judgment of the District Court of Ramsey County, Chas. E. Otis, J., rendered April 27, 1893.

The plaintiff commenced this action under 1878 G. S. ch. 75, § 2, to determine the adverse claims of defendant, Howard L. Smith, to lot five (5) and a part of lot A, in Berryhill & Davison's rearrangement of block three (3) in Nininger & Donnelly's addition to Holcombe's addition to St. Paul. Defendant answered claiming title under a judgment and sale in an action commenced August 29, 1891, to foreclose mechanic's liens on the property. Plaintiff replied that she had title to the property under foreclosure by advertisement of a mortgage on the property held by William C. Resser. That when the lien action was commenced she held an assignment from Resser to her made June 10, 1891, of the certificate of sale on foreclosure of the mortgage, but was not made a party to that action, and that her title is not affected by the sale in the lien action. It appeared that the assignment by Resser to her was not recorded until after confirmation of the sale in the lien action, but that Resser was made a party defendant in that action, and that he then appeared of record to own the certificate. The defendant had judgment and plaintiff appeals.

Cyrus J. Thompson and Charles J. Berryhill, for appellant.

Howard L. Smith, pro se.

MITCHELL, J.

Action to determine adverse claims to real property. The short facts are that one Healey was originally the owner of the property, subject to a mortgage held by one Resser, through which plaintiff claims title, and subject to certain mechanics' liens, through which defendant claims title. In an action commenced by some of the lienholders to foreclose their mechanics' liens, and to which the other lienholders, as well as Healey and Resser, were made defendants, judgment was rendered April 7, 1892, adjudging the claims of all the lienholders to be specific liens on the premises superior to the lien of Resser's mortgage, and ordering the premises sold to satisfy the claims. The land was sold May 24, 1892, the sale confirmed, and a certificate of sale issued to the defendant as purchaser. From this sale there has been no redemption. Resser had foreclosed his mortgage by advertisement on April 27, 1891, and bid in the property himself, and had assigned the certificate of sale to plaintiff in June, 1891; but this assignment was never recorded, and neither the defendant nor any of the parties to the "lien action" had any notice or knowledge, actual or constructive, of this assignment, until after entry of judgment in the action. We are of opinion that, upon this state of facts, plaintiff's unrecorded assignment of the certificate of sale was cut out by the judgment in the lien suit, under the provisions of the "recording act." 1878 G. S. ch. 40, § 21.

There is no warrant in the language of the statute...