Heidahl v. Geiser Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1910 |
| Citation | 112 Minn. 319,127 N.W. 1050 |
| Parties | HEIDAHL v. GEISER MFG. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Pope County; S. A. Flaherty, Judge.
Action by Nels S. Heidahl against the Geiser Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
When real estate is conveyed subject to a mortgage, and the grantee assumes payment of the mortgage debt, the relation of principal and surety is established between the parties, the grantee becoming the principal and the mortgagor the surety; and the satisfaction of the mortgage by the mortgagee, with knowledge of such conveyance, releases the mortgagor from the mortgage debt. Benton, Molyneaux & Morley, for appellant.
Henry T. Ronning, for respondent.
Respondent purchased a threshing machine outfit from appellant, and executed a chattel mortgage to secure the payment of purchase-money notes, and also executed a mortgage upon 80 acres of land as security. He then sold and conveyed the real estate by warranty deed to one George Washburn, subject to the mortgage to appellant, and also subject to a prior mortgage of $1,000. Washburn assumed the payment of both mortgages as a part consideration of the purchase price, and then conveyed the premises to Ida Ganske, subject to both mortgages, and she assumed their payment as a part consideration of the purchase price. The first mortgage was then foreclosed, and a few days before the expiration of the time to redeem a representative of appellant company entered into an agreement with Ida Ganske by which the company received $250 in cash and satisfied the mortgage. Appellant, claiming that the balance of the original notes given on the purchase of the threshing outfit had not been paid, foreclosed the chattel mortgage and bid in the property. Respondent then commenced this action in replevin to recover the property, or its value. The court found, in addition to the facts above stated, that at the time appellant satisfied the real estate mortgage it had full knowledge of the conveyance by respondent to Washburn, and by him to Ganske, and of the fact that in each deed the grantee assumed and agreed to pay both mortgages. The court also found that the real estate was equal in value to more than the amount of both mortgages. Ganske alone redeemed.
It is contended by appellant that its representative, who delivered the satisfaction in consideration of $250, was a mere collecting agent,...
To continue reading
Request your trial