Carpenter v. Artisans' Sav. Bank
| Decision Date | 22 November 1890 |
| Citation | 44 Minn. 521,47 N.W. 150 |
| Parties | CARPENTER ET AL. v ARTISANS' SAV. BANK. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A chattel mortgage to A., as mortgagee, had not been formally assigned by him to the creditor holding the debt it was given to secure, and the latter foreclosed, affixing the name of A. to the notices of sale. Held, that the foreclosure was valid.
Appeal from district court, Cottonwood county; PERKINS, Judge.
J. A. Town, for appellant.
J. G. Redding, for respondents.
The only question in the case is on the validity of the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. It is conceded by respondent that the defendant bank was the equitable owner of that mortgage; that it stood as security for the debt due it from Carpenter. Upon no other theory could the value of the mortgaged property be applied to satisfaction of the debt, for ordinarily a cause of action in Carpenter against the bank for converting property not part of the securities held by it, nor connected with the debt due, could not be set off against the debt. It appears also that Knobloch, who was named in the mortgage as mortgagee, did not execute an express assignment of it to the bank. The case is one therefore where the equitable title to a security is in one person, and the apparent or legal title is in another, who has no actual interest in it. The court below held the foreclosure void, because the bank in foreclosing did it in the name of Knobloch, that is, it affixed his name to the notices of sale. We presume the attention of the court was not called to the case of Bottineau v. Insurance Co., 31 Minn. 125,16 N. W. Rep. 849, which was the case of a mortgage upon real estate foreclosed under the power by one to whom it had been formally assigned, others being equitable owners of the mortgage. It was decided that the former held the legal title to the mortgage and power of sale in trust for the latter to the extent of their interest; that they could require him to exercise the power, and enforce the security, and, if they permitted him to exercise the power, they would, as between them and the mortgagor, be bound by his action. The converse must be true that if the holder of the legal title allows the equitable owner to foreclose, using his name, both are bound, and the foreclosure is valid. It is a matter between them alone, and does not concern the mortgagor. As said in the case cited: “The mortgagor whose interests were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Reg. Sys., No. A08-397.
...separated from legal title. A year later we expressed more directly our opinion that legal and equitable title can be separated. Carpenter v. Artisans' Sav. Bank was a chattel mortgage case in which equitable title to a security was in one person, and the apparent or legal title was in anot......
-
Hathorn v. Butler
...beneficiary as against the mortgagor, and on the mortgagor as against the beneficiary. Bottineau v. Aetna L. Ins. Co., supra; Carpenter v. Artisans Sav. Bank, supra. The letter the statute has been complied with. Plaintiff's objection, if well taken, could only render the foreclosure voidab......
-
Kebasso v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Civil No. 11–360(DSD/AJB).
...such a transaction does “not affect the interests of the mortgagor, and he could not object.” Id. (citing Carpenter v. Artisans' Sav. Bank, 44 Minn. 521, 47 N.W. 150, 150 (1890)); see also Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Souza, No. A10–190, 2010 WL 3958671, at *3 n. 2 (Minn.Ct.App. Oct. 12,......
-
Clarke v. Mitchell
...v. Wright, 33 Minn. 224, 22 N. W. 381; Burke v. Backus, supra; Bottineau v. Insurance Co., 31 Minn. 125, 16 N. W. 849;Carpenter v. Bank, 44 Minn. 521, 47 N. W. 150. Without unnecessary speculation as to the rights of the beneficiaries of Mrs. Mitchell, we think the above rule applies here, ......