Groff v. Ramsey
Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
Citation | 19 Minn. 24 |
Parties | MATTHEW GROFF v. ALEXANDER RAMSEY and others. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Brisbin & Palmer, for appellant.
Bigelow, Flandrau & Clark and C. K. Davis, for respondent.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff for the partition of certain real estate, or a sale thereof if partition cannot be made, etc. The premises which are alleged to be subject to partition or sale are the east half of lot 10, in block 26, St. Paul proper, being 25 feet front on Third street by 150 feet deep, the value of which is alleged to be $12,500.
The complaint alleges title in the plaintiff, Matthew Groff, in fee, in and to the undivided two-thirds of the premises, and admits title to the remaining undivided one-third thereof in the defendant Ramsey.
The answer, for a first defense, denies that plaintiff ever had, or now has, any title whatever to any portion of the premises, and avers that the title in fee to the entire premises, for a long time previous to the commencement of the action, has been and still is in the defendant Alexander Ramsey.
For another and separate defense, the answer sets up the facts upon which the defendant Ramsey claims title in fee to the entire premises.
For a further and separate defense, the answer avers title in fee to the premises in Ramsey, and possession thereof by him, and that the plaintiff claims some estate or interest therein adverse to said Ramsey, and demands judgment that the adverse claim of plaintiff be determined and adjudged to be without foundation and void, and that Ramsey be adjudged to be the owner in fee-simple of the premises, and the title quieted and settled in him; that the plaintiff, and all persons claiming under him, be enjoined from setting up any adverse claim; and that the plaintiff be adjudged to convey to Ramsey, etc., or that the judgment stand in place of such conveyance, etc.
The title to the premises is the paramount issue in the case. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the facts found by the court are fully set forth in the written findings. There is no dispute about the fact that, on and prior to the seventh of April, 1849, one Lucretia M. Curtis was the owner in fee and possessed of lot 10, block 26, St. Paul proper, and that on the seventh of April, 1849, by warranty deed of that date filed for record on the twenty-first of April following, the said Lucretia M. Curtis conveyed the said lot (of which the premises involved in this action are the east half) to Samuel Gilbert, Jr., James McBoal, and C. P. V. Lull. Nor is it disputed that, by virtue of a certain mortgage executed by Lull, and certain conveyances from Lull and Gilbert and others under them, the undivided half of the entire lot, embracing Lull's undivided third and the undivided half of Gilbert's undivided third, became vested in one Samuel J. Wilkin prior to the sixth day of September, 1864, and was so vested in him on that day, which was prior to the execution of the deed from Lull to plaintiff, under which he claims title. Nor is there any doubt that, by the deed of McBoal to Ramsey of April 7, 1852, recorded April 20, 1852, McBoal's undivided one-third of the entire lot was vested in Ramsey. The only portion of the original lot, therefore, which remains, and about the title to which there can be any controversy, is the one undivided half of the undivided third of Samuel Gilbert, Jr.
The fact is established beyond controversy that Gilbert acquired his interest in the premises by the deed from L. M. Curtis to Gilbert, McBoal, and Lull on the seventh of April, 1849, and both parties find in him a common source of title. The plaintiff claims title under him by virtue of the following conveyances: (1) A quitclaim deed, dated July 30, 1857, recorded the eighth of August, 1857, executed by Samuel Gilbert, Jr., and Jane Gilbert, his wife, to C. P. V. Lull, in consideration of five dollars, releasing to said Lull all the interest of said Gilbert and wife in said lot 10, block 26. (2) A quitclaim deed, dated July 29, 1869, executed by C. P. V. Lull to the plaintiff, by which, in consideration of $500, he released and quitclaimed said property to the plaintiff, Matthew Groff.
The defendant Alexander Ramsey claims to have acquired the equitable title to the undivided half of Gilbert's undivided third of the lot on the fourth day of June, 1852, by virtue of certain negotiations and written instruments hereafter detailed, and that the plaintiff and his grantor had notice thereof at and prior to the time of the conveyance to him.
We do not deem it necessary to comment upon the specific objections by the appellant to certain findings of the court, on the ground that such findings are not supported by the evidence. We deem it sufficient to say that all the findings which are material to the decision of the case, in the view we take of it, are fully sustained by the evidence. We may advert, however, to the fact that the partition deed between Wilkin and Ramsey, executed on the sixth of September, 1864, although offered in evidence, is not embodied in the case before us; and the presumption in its absence is that the recitals therein show the fact, stated in the finding of the court, "that in pursuance of an agreement made some years before, (and which had been partly executed by exclusive possession being taken by the parties in accordance with its terms,) on the sixth day of September, 1864," the partition deed between Wilkin and Ramsey was executed.
Assuming, as we will for the present, that the evidence was properly received, we will determine — First, whether, upon the facts found, Ramsey acquired an equitable title to an undivided half of Gilbert's undivided third of lot 10, in block 26, St. Paul proper; second, if he did, had Lull and the plaintiff, Groff, sufficient notice of Ramsey's equitable title at the time of the respective conveyances to them, under which plaintiff claimed title? third, we will consider objections to the testimony.
The letter under which Lull acted in the negotiations carried on by him and McBoal with Ramsey was as follows;
The authority of an agent to sell and to contract for the sale of real estate may be by parol, and if the agent acts within the scope of the authority conferred upon him, the principal will be bound. Fry, Spec. Perf. 123, 235, 228, 229.
It appears from the testimony of Lull that, at the time this letter was written, there was a house upon the lot, and that he was not concerned with Gilbert in any other property. The existence of the outstanding mortgage upon the lot to Mrs. Curtis is also established.
These facts, in connection with the letter, leave no reasonable doubt that the premises referred to in the letter are those owned by Gilbert, Lull, and McBoal, to-wit, lot 10, block 26. The letter, by its plain terms, at the least, constitutes Lull the agent of Gilbert to sell the entire interest of the latter, or any part of it, in the premises, without accountability for the proceeds.
As appears from the finding of the court, Gilbert having left the then territory of Minnesota, in the fall of 1849, with the purpose of remaining away, and not having returned, L. M. Curtis, the mortgagee in the mortgage executed by Gilbert, McBoal, and Lull upon the premises, in the year 1850 took certain steps towards the foreclosure of said mortgage, and on the eighth of June, 1850, claiming to act by virtue of the power of sale contained in the mortgage, had the property sold at public sale by Charles Bazille, then acting as coroner of the said county of Ramsey, at which sale the property was sold to the said L. M. Curtis for the sum of $400; and the coroner, on the tenth of June, 1850, executed a certificate of sale to the said L. M. Curtis, in which it was stated that on the eighth of June, 1852, unless it was sooner redeemed as provided by law, the said L. M. Curtis, as such purchaser, would be entitled to receive a deed of the said property.
Under this state of affairs the court finds distinctly that, in the winter and spring of 1852, McBoal and Lull, fearing to lose the property in consequence of the foreclosure proceedings aforesaid, entered into negotiations with the defendant Alexander Ramsey, the object of which was to sell to the said Ramsey an undivided half interest in the said property, and thereby to procure an amount of money sufficient to redeem such property from such foreclosure sale aforesaid. During the course of the negotiations McBoal and Lull claimed to own the whole of said property in common; but upon Ramsey's calling their attention to the record, which disclosed an undivided third interest in said property in Gilbert, Lull claimed to have authority to dispose of the whole of Gilbert's interest in said property, and showed to Ramsey, as such authority, the letter of February 7, 1850, from Gilbert to Lull.
The result of the negotiations between Lull and McBoal of the one part, Lull assuming also to act as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Inv. Sales Diversified, Inc.
...that its determination that the Trustee had constructive notice of the prior claim effectively removed such bar. 4 See Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 24 (1872). In Groff, the Minnesota Supreme Court characterized the rule adopted in Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 422, Gil 325, (1860), as establishin......
-
Ludowese v. Amidon
... ... tenant not only protects him in the enjoyment of his term but ... is notice of his landlord's title." Groff v ... Ramsey, 19 Minn. 24 (44); Wilkins v. Bevier, 43 ... Minn. 213, 45 N.W. 157, 19 Am. St. 238; Wolf v ... Zabel, 44 Minn. 90, 46 N.W. 81; ... ...
-
Thompson v. Borg
...by tenant, is notice of the right, title, and equity of the possessor thereto or therein. Morrison v. March, 4 Minn. 325 (422); Groff v. Ramsey, 19 Minn. 24 (44); Siebert v. Rosser, 24 Minn. 155; Wilkins Bevier, 43 Minn. 213, 45 N.W. 157; Wolf v. Zabel, 44 Minn. 90, 46 N.W. 81; Northwestern......
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Lund
... ... take notice of his rights, and of whatever title, legal or ... equitable, ... [97 N.W. 454] ... he may have had to the land. Groff v. Ramsey, 19 ... Minn. 24 (44); New v. Wheaton, 24 Minn. 406; ... Jones v. Brenizer, 70 Minn. 525, 73 N.W. 255. It is ... not alleged in the ... ...