Coffman v. London & Nw. Am. Mortg. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1906
• Citation: 98 Minn. 416,108 N.W. 840
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: COFFMAN v. LONDON & NORTHWEST AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO., Limited, et al.

98 Minn. 416

108 N.W. 840

COFFMAN

v.LONDON & NORTHWEST AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO., Limited, et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 29, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hascal R. Brill, Judge.

Action by Ashley Coffman against the London & Northwest American Mortgage Company and others. From an order of the district court denying a motion to have the decision vacated and for a new trial therein, Josiah N. Rogers appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

The owner of a St. Paul city assessment certificate upon vacant land upon which notice to eliminate the right of redemption has been given, but who was not entitled to and had not received a formal deed because of his failure to pay subsequent assessment, cannot, on such claim of title, maintain an action to determine adverse claims against the owner of the fee. J. N. Rogers (Durment & Moore, of counsel), for appellant.

Ashley Coffman, for respondent.

JAGGARD, J.

Substantially in the language of appellant's brief, this is an appeal from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, denying the motion of the appellant to have the decision in the foregoing action vacated and set aside and for a new trial therein. The action in which this decision was rendered was one to determine adverse claims to a tract comprising some 17 acres of vacant land within the limits of the city of St. Paul. The complaint was in the statutory form, alleging that title in fee was in plaintiff, that the land was vacant and unoccupied, and that the defendants claim some interest therein or lien thereon. Various of the defendants answered, among them the appellant, Josiah N. Rogers, who put in issue plaintiff's claim of title and alleged fee title in himself to an undivided one-half part of the real estate in question and prayed ‘judgment accordingly.’ It was admitted upon the trial that the appellant Rogers was the owner of such undivided one-half interest, if the same had not been divested by the tax and assessment certificates upon which plaintiff rested his claim of title. These certificates were two in number. The tax certificates is eliminated from present consideration because of admitted insufficiency of notice of expiration of redemption. ‘The record therefore presents the naked question as to whether plaintiff, who in his complaint has alleged legal title, and who appears simply to hold the assessment certificate, is entitled in this action to a judgment quieting title against appellant who, with one of the other defendants, concededly holds the patent title.’

We are of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment quieting title. It is not necessary and would be improper to here determine whether or not the assessment certificate and the proceedings upon which it is based were valid. It may be conceded that the certificate and proceedings were valid and that due notice had been given to eliminate the defendants' right of redemption....