Ellingson v. State Bank of Hoffman
| Decision Date | 13 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 28320.,No. 28440.,28320.,28440. |
| Citation | 234 N.W. 867,182 Minn. 510 |
| Parties | ELLINGSON v. STATE BANK OF HOFFMAN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Grant County; S. A. Flaherty, Judge.
Action by Oscar A. Ellingson against the State Bank of Hoffman. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
R. J. Stromme, of Elbow Lake, and Murphy, Johanson & Nelson, of Wheaton, for appellant.
John I. Davis, of Benson, and Frank J. Zima, of Glenwood, for respondent.
Defendant appealed from a judgment entered after its motion for judgment non obstante was denied. There was no motion for a new trial.
The complaint is for money had and received by defendant from the hands of persons named on account of the sale by defendant of certain lands belonging to plaintiff.
The facts supported by the evidence and the verdict are these:
Plaintiff owned a 320-acre farm upon which defendant held a second and third mortgage. The first mortgage thereon was foreclosed on April 22, 1922. Defendant redeemed therefrom on April 24, 1923, by paying $9,006.04. It was previously agreed between plaintiff and defendant, so the jury has said, that plaintiff need not redeem; that defendant should; that plaintiff was to produce buyers for the farm; and that, when all of the land was sold and paid for, the money going to the defendant, it should repay the plaintiff the excess over and above what it paid for making the redemption plus plaintiff's indebtedness to it. In reliance thereon, plaintiff discontinued the negotiations for a new loan to take up the existing incumbrances and devoted his time to looking for buyers, which he produced, and to whom defendant sold the land. The excess, as determined by the verdict, was $1,864.75.
1. Defendant claims the contract, the existence of which it denies, is not supported by a consideration. Standing strictly as a contract, a consideration is of course necessary. 42 C. J. 392, § 2161; 2 Jones on Mortgages (8th Ed.) § 1350. The redemption having been made by the defendant under the terms of the agreement, it stood in the shoes of the first mortgagee after the foreclosure. Plaintiff's discontinuance of efforts to negotiate a new loan in reliance upon the agreement, as the jury was justified in concluding from the evidence in the case, was a sufficient consideration. Relying on the mortgagee's promise, plaintiff mortgagor forbore his own right to redeem. Such forbearance of a legal right, standing alone and regardless of results, is enough detriment to the promisee to fulfill the requirements of consideration for the promise. Restatement Law of Contracts, Am. Law Inst. § 75; Home Supply Co. v. Ostrom, 164 Minn. 99, 204 N. W. 647.
2. There is also another theory within the submission of the case upon which plaintiff should prevail. Defendant, by its conduct in making the contract, waived its strict legal rights in respect to the time for redemption. Tice v. Russell, 43 Minn. 66, 44 N. W. 886; 41 C. J. 894, § 1118. This conclusion is upheld upon the grounds of general equitable relief, the most frequent of which is found in the application of the principles of estoppel. 54 A. L. R. 1211, Anno. IV, wherein cases are numerously cited; 42 C. J. 392, §§ 2163, 2167, note 54, and section 2168; 2 Jones on Mortgages (8th Ed.) § 1350; and Farmers' State Bank v. Anton, 51 N. D. 202, 199 N. W. 582. The strongest equitable principle which gives relief is that the debtor is lulled into a false security to his prejudice.
3. By such agreement and conduct defendant waived and abandoned rights acquired as a redemptioner of the mortgaged property from the foreclosure sale, and in legal effect, it stepping into the shoes of the prior mortgagee, assumed and continued the relation of mortgagor and...
To continue reading
Request your trial