Heisler v. C. Aultman & Co
| Decision Date | 09 February 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8438 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 1053,56 Minn. 454 |
| Parties | Nancy Heisler v. C. Aultman & Co |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued January 8, 1894.
Appeal by defendant, C. Aultman & Co., a corporation, from an order of the District Court of Blue Earth County, M. J. Severance J., made August 14, 1893, denying its motion for a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Hale & Morgan and E. E. Smith, for appellant.
Equity will not afford relief to plaintiff on the ground that she has lost her remedy at law through mere ignorance of the judgment, the knowledge of which might have been obtained by due diligence and inquiry. Conner v. Welch, 51 Wis 431; Mamlock v. Fairbanks, 46 Wis. 415; Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U.S. 55; Voorhis v. Murphy, 26 N.J.Eq. 434; Dillett v. Kemble, 25 N.J.Eq. 66; Haggerty v. McCanna, 25 N.J.Eq. 48; Penny v. Martin 4 Johns. Ch. 566.
Where there is no relation of trust or confidence between the parties, one cannot proceed blindly omitting all inquiry and examination, and then complain that the other did not volunteer to give the information he had. Dambmann v Schulting, 75 N.Y. 55; Southwick v. First Nat. Bank, 84 N.Y. 420; Hill v. Aldrich, 48 Minn. 73; Eastman v. St. Anthony Water Power Co., 24 Minn. 437. Plaintiff cannot claim that she did not have notice of defendant's lien, for the law charged her with notice as though she had actual notice. 1878 G. S. ch. 66, § 277; Parkist v. Alexander, 1 Johns. Ch. 394; Brinckerhoff v. Lansing, 4 Johns. Ch. 64; Johnson v. Stagg, 2 Johns. 509.
Plaintiff was ignorant as to the existence of the judgment, but, as was observed by Chancellor Kent in Penny v. Martin, supra, "ignorance is not mistake." Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill 287; McDaniels v. Bank of Rutland, 29 Vt. 230.
J. L. Washburn and Lorin Cray, for respondent.
Plaintiff, being surety on the note of $ 550, and having paid the same was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the creditor and to the benefit of all the securities. She was entitled to a pro rata amount of the security at least. Felton v. Bissel, 25 Minn. 15; McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74; Conner v. Howe, 35 Minn. 518.
Plaintiff having paid the note for $ 900, the payment operated as an equitable assignment to her of the mortgage and all the rights of the mortgagee; and she being a grantee of a mortgagor and not having assumed the payment of the mortgage, should be treated as an equitable assignee of the mortgage. Barnes v. Mott, 64 N.Y. 397; Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 417; Levy v. Martin, 48 Wis. 198; Blodgett v. Hitt, 29 Wis. 169; Carpentier v. Brenham, 40 Cal. 221.
Even though the McKenna mortgage was discharged of record at the express request of the plaintiff, yet as she was ignorant of defendant's lien, and would not have had the mortgage discharged if she had known of it, she is entitled to have the mortgage reinstated and to full protection against the lien of the judgment. Geib v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 331; Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 417; Barnes v. Mott, 64 N.Y. 397; Stimpson v. Pease, 52 Ia. 572; Stanton v. Thompson, 49 N.H. 272.
Stated in chronological order, the controlling facts in this case are as follows: July 28, 1880, defendant corporation duly recovered, and caused to be docketed in the office of the clerk of the District Court for Blue Earth county, in this state, a judgment for the sum of $ 844.09 against one John C. Heisler and another. In March, 1886, said Heisler purchased, and there was duly conveyed to him by warranty deed, a farm in said county, consisting of one hundred and ten acres, subject to a mortgage for the sum of $ 900; and, for the vendor's interest, Heisler agreed to pay the sum of $ 1,450, to be evidenced by two promissory notes, -- one for $ 550, and the other for $ 900. The plaintiff in this action, at the request of said Heisler, who was her son, signed his said note for $ 550, as a surety, and it was delivered to the vendor of the farm. Heisler also made and delivered to said vendor his note for $ 900, and, to secure the payment of both notes, executed and delivered a second mortgage on the farm, which was duly recorded. John C. Heisler neglected to pay the note for $ 550 when it matured, and, upon the commencement of legal proceedings against her to enforce its collection, the plaintiff paid the same. She then paid the note for $ 900 given to the vendor of the farm, and soon afterwards, December 7, 1887, said John C., his wife joining, executed and delivered a warranty deed, whereby they conveyed the farm to the plaintiff, subject to the mortgage first above mentioned. The deed to said John C. Heisler, and the deed from him and his wife to the plaintiff herein, were recorded simultaneously, on January 3, 1888. The court found that the deed last mentioned was accepted by plaintiff to secure and indemnify her for the amounts so paid by her on said notes, that the value of the farm had never exceeded $ 2,300, and that no part of the sums paid by plaintiff had been repaid to her. On January 21, 1888, the vendor mortgagee executed and delivered a satisfaction of his mortgage, which was duly recorded; the effect on the title, as shown by the record and docket entries, being to promote defendant's judgment, and to make it a second instead of a third lien on the land. The only superior lien was that of the first mortgage, and, as will be seen, the plaintiff's claim or interest in the farm was thus made of no practical value. At no time prior to this was the plaintiff informed of the existence of the judgment, nor had she caused any examination to be made in the clerk's office as to judgments against her son. January 11, 1890, after this action had been commenced, and defendants had been informed of plaintiff's equities, the farm was sold to one Lamb, by the proper sheriff, under and by virtue of an execution duly issued upon the judgment, and to satisfy the same. The sheriff's certificate of sale was delivered to Lamb, but defendant was the real purchaser, and shortly afterwards the certificate was duly assigned to it. On these findings the court below ordered judgment canceling and annulling the satisfaction of the mortgage and the record of the same, and restoring and reinstating, of record and otherwise, the mortgage lien as of the date of the record, and as prior and paramount to the lien or claim of defendant by virtue of the judgment or sale on execution, or otherwise; further, that plaintiff was the equitable assignee and owner of said mortgage, and that as such she be subrogated to the rights of the original mortgagee.
This appeal is from an order denying a new trial.
The doctrine of subrogation has recently been considered by this court in two cases: Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386, (52 N.W. 31,) and Wentworth v Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388, (55 N.W. 543.) It was said in the first-mentioned case that this doctrine is enforced solely for the purpose of accomplishing substantial justice,...
To continue reading
Request your trial