Heitsch v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company, a Corporation

• Decision Date: 12 December 1914
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

150 N.W. 457

29 N.D. 94

ANNA G. HEITSCH, formerly Anna G. Boe, and Henry Heitsch, v. MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE COMPANY, a Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 12, 1914

Action to quiet title to real estate. From a judgment of the District Court of Pierce County. Burr, J., defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Judgment reversed, and judgment entered confirming and quieting the title of the said Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company in and to the lands described in the plaintiffs' complaint, and awarding to said defendant the costs of the action. Plaintiffs and respondents paid the costs and disbursements of appeal.

J. A Hosp, George A. Bangs, and George A. Robbins, for appellants.

Because the person who has the statutory right to redeem property from sale refuses to do so is no reason why a court of equity should interfere and save her from her own folly. 11 Cyc 1324; 27 Cyc. 1503, notes 54, and 55; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 1036; 3 Freeman, Executions, § 314; Wiltsie, Mortg Foreclosures, § 1082; State ex rel. Brooks Bros. v. O'Connor, 6 N.D. 291, 69 N.W. 692; Nichols v. Tingstad, 10 N.D. 180, 86 N.W. 697; Grandin v. Emmons, 10 N.D. 223, 54 L.R.A. 610, 88 Am. St. Rep. 684, 86 N.W. 723; Lynch v. Burt, 67 C. C. A. 305, 132 F. 429; Reilly v. Phillips, 4 S.D. 604, 57 N.W. 780; Dray v. Dray, 21 Ore. 59, 27 P. 223; Tharp v. Kerr, 141 Iowa 26, 119 N.W. 267; Gilchrist v. Comfort, 34 N.Y. 235; Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132; Dickerson v. Hayes, 26 Minn. 100, 1 N.W. 834; Hoover v. Johnson, 47 Minn. 434, 50 N.W. 475; Littler v. People, 43 Ill. 188; Durley v. Davis, 69 Ill. 133; Hyman v. Bogue, 135 Ill. 9, 26 N.E. 40; Wooters v. Joseph, 137 Ill. 113, 31 Am. St. Rep. 355, 27 N.E. 80; Parker v. Dacres, 130 U.S. 43, 32 L.Ed. 848, 9 S.Ct. 433; Grove v. Great Northern Loan Co. 17 N.D. 352, 138 Am. St. Rep. 707, 116 N.W. 345.

Courts have no right to extend the period in which to make redemption, except in case of fraud which prevents a redemption within one year. Ignorance of the law, or misfortune, gives a court of equity no right to interfere. 17 Cyc. 1329; 27 Cyc. 1822, 1830, 1831; 2 Jones, Mortg. § 1053; 3 Freeman, Executions, § 316; State ex rel. Brooks Bros. v. O'Connor, 6 N.D. 285, 69 N.W. 692; Nichols v. Tingstad, 10 N.D. 172, 86 N.W. 694; Grandin v. Emmons, 10 N.D. 222, 54 L.R.A. 610, 88 Am. St. Rep. 684, 86 N.W. 723; Little v. Worner, 11 N.D. 382, 92 N.W. 456; Lynch v. Burt, 67 C. C. A. 305, 132 F. 429; Tilley v. Bonney, 123 Cal. 118, 55 P. 798; Hurn v. Hill, 70 Iowa 40, 29 N.W. 796; McConkey v. Lamb, 71 Iowa 636, 33 N.W. 146; Stocker v. Puckett, 17 S.D. 267, 96 N.W. 91; Hoover v. Johnson, 47 Minn. 434, 50 N.W. 475; Gates v. Ege, 57 Minn. 465, 59 N.W. 495; Bethel v. Smith, 83 Ky. 84; Gosmunt v. Gloe, 55 Neb. 709, 76 N.W. 424; Stewart v. Park College, 68 Kan. 465, 75 P. 491; Keely v. Sanders, 99 U.S. 441, 446, 25 L.Ed. 327.

One making redemption proceeds at his peril, and if he does not tender the proper amount his rights are lost. 17 Cyc. 1332, note 45; 27 Cyc. 1823; 2 Jones, Mortg. § 1070; Hunt, Tender, §§ 51, 196; Davis v. Dale, 150 Ill. 239, 37 N.E. 215; Boyden v. Moore, 5 Mass. 370; Wright v. Behrens, 39 N.J.L. 413; Williams v. Dickerson, 66 Iowa 106, 23 N.W. 286; Case v. Fry, 91 Iowa 132, 59 N.W. 333; Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 289, Gil. 216, 100 Am. Dec. 222; Dickerson v. Hayes, 26 Minn. 100, 1 N.W. 834; Hoover v. Johnson, 47 Minn. 434, 50 N.W. 475; Bovey De Laittre Lumber Co. v. Tucker, 48 Minn. 223, 50 N.W. 1038; Bartleson v. Munson, 105 Minn. 348, 117 N.W. 512; McMillan v. Vischer, 14 Cal. 232; Durley v. Davis, 69 Ill. 133; Dickenson v. Gilliland, 1 Cow. 481; Harmon v. Steed, 49 F. 779; Beebe v. Buxton, 99 Ala. 117, 12 So. 567; Beatty v. Brown, 101 Ala. 695, 14 So. 368; Murphree v. Summerlin, 114 Ala. 54, 21 So. 470.

While the sheriff is a public agent for the purpose of receiving redemption money, he cannot bind the purchaser by an illegal or improper redemption. Hunt, Tender, § 285; North Dakota Horse & Cattle Co. v. Serumgard, 17 N.D. 466, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 508, 138 Am. St. Rep. 717, 117 N.W. 453; McDonald v. Beatty, 10 N.D. 519, 88 N.W. 281; Hannah v. Chase, 4 N.D. 355, 50 Am. St. Rep. 656, 61 N.W. 18; Bennett v. Wilson, 122 Cal. 509, 68 Am. St. Rep. 61, 55 P. 390; McMillan v. Vischer, 14 Cal. 232; Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 289, Gil. 216, 100 Am. Dec. 222; Davis v. Seymour, 16 Minn. 210, Gil. 184; Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 142; McCarthy v. Grace, 23 Minn. 182; Schroeder v. Lahrman, 28 Minn. 75, 9 N.W. 173; Hall v. Swensen, 65 Minn. 391, 67 N.W. 1024; Hull v. Chapel, 71 Minn. 408, 74 N.W. 156; Hughes v. Olson, 74 Minn. 237, 73 Am. St. Rep. 343, 77 N.W. 42; Byer v. Healy, 84 Iowa 1, 50 N.W. 70; Byers v. McEniry, 117 Iowa 499, 91 N.W. 797; Gilchrist v. Comfort, 34 N.Y. 235.

Misfortune, culpable negligence, ignorance of the law, or mistake as to the law, will not justify the interference of a court of equity. 17 Cyc. 1332; 3 Freeman, Executions, § 316, p. 1857; Case v. Fry, 91 Iowa 132, 59 N.W. 333; McConkey v. Lamb, 71 Iowa 636, 33 N.W. 146; Tharp v. Kerr, 141 Iowa 26, 119 N.W. 267; Campau v. Godfrey, 18 Mich. 27, 100 Am. Dec. 133; Cameron v. Adams, 31 Mich. 426; Dickerson v. Hayes, 26 Minn. 100, 1 N.W. 834; State v. Kerr, 51 Minn. 417, 53 N.W. 719; Hyman v. Bogue, 135 Ill. 9, 26 N.E. 40; Lynch v. Burt, 67 C. C. A. 305, 132 F. 430.

The issue as to whether or not Anna G. Heitsch redeemed is res judicata. Where the real party in interest defends the action, the judgment is none the less res judicata because the proceedings are in the name of the sheriff. Baxter v. Myers, 85 Iowa 328, 39 Am. St. Rep. 298, 52 N.W. 234; Elder v. Frevert, 18 Nev. 446, 5 P. 69.

A judgment in mandamus is as conclusive as a judgment in any other action, as to the issues determined therein. 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 723; 26 Cyc. 485; 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 504; Santa Cruz Gap Turnp. Joint Stock Co. v. Santa Clara County, 62 Cal. 40; Visher v. Smith, 92 Cal. 60, 28 P. 94; Hoffman v. Silverthorn, 137 Mich. 60, 100 N.W. 183; Lewis v. Brown Twp. 109 U.S. 162-166, 27 L.Ed. 892, 893, 3 S.Ct. 92; Smeaton v. Austin, 82 Wis. 76, 51 N.W. 1090; Ashton v. Rochester, 133 N.Y. 187, 28 Am. St. Rep. 619, 30 N.E. 965, 31 N.E. 334.

A valid judgment for plaintiff definitely and finally negatives every defense, objection, or exception which might have been urged in the action. 24 Cyc. 1196, 1295; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 781; 23 Cyc. 1242; Ward v. Clendenning, 245 Ill. 206, 91 N.E. 1028; Landes v. Matthews, 136 Mo.App. 637, 118 S.W. 1185; Kennedy v. Security Bldg. & Sav. Asso. Ky. , 57 S.W. 388; Shoemake v. Finlayson, 22 Wash. 12, 60 P. 50; Douthitt v. MacCulsky, 11 Wash. 601, 40 P. 186; Daskam v. Ullman, 74 Wis. 474, 43 N.W. 321; American Bonding Co. v. Loeb, 47 Wash. 447, 92 P. 282; Ramsey v. Wilson, 52 Wash. 111, 100 P. 177; Rullman v. Rullman, 81 Kan. 521, 106 P. 52; Drinkhouse v. Spring Valley Waterworks, 87 Cal. 253, 25 P. 420; Harvie v. Turner, 46 Mo. 444; Landis v. Hamilton, 77 Mo. 554; Walden v. Walden, 128 Ga. 126, 57 S.E. 323; Canal Constr. Co. v. Woodbury County, 146 Iowa 526, 121 N.W. 556; Montgomery v. Vickery, 110 Ind. 211, 11 N.E. 38; Parr v. State, 71 Md. 220, 17 A. 1020; Bachelder v. Brown, 47 Mich. 366, 11 N.W. 200.

Where the real party in interest conducts the defense,--employs and pays counsel,--he is bound by the judgment. 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 737; 1 Freeman, Judgm. §§ 174, 184; 1 Herman, Estoppel, §§ 148, 150, 156, 157; 2 Van Fleet, Former Adjudication, §§ 522, 523; Bigelow v. Draper, 6 N.D. 158, 69 N.W. 570; Boyd v. Wallace, 10 N.D. 78, 84 N.W. 760; Bachelder v. Brown, 47 Mich. 366, 11 N.W. 200; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 126 Mich. 217, 85 N.W. 576; 136 Mich. 362, 99 N.W. 395; Kolpack v. Kolpack, 128 Wis. 169, 116 Am. St. Rep. 29, 107 N.W. 457; Hendricks v. Dean, 105 Minn. 162, 117 N.W. 426; Parsons v. Urie, 104 Md. 238, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 559, 64 A. 927, 10 Ann. Cas. 278; Hurd v. McClellan, 1 Colo.App. 327, 29 P. 181; Thomsen v. McCormick, 136 Ill. 135, 26 N.E. 373; Stoddard v. Thompson, 31 Iowa 80; McNamee v. Moreland, 26 Iowa 96; Wright v. Andrews, 130 Mass. 149; Albert v. Hamilton, 76 Md. 304, 25 A. 341; Parr v. State, 71 Md. 220, 17 A. 1020; Peterson v. Lothrop, 34 Pa. 228.

The notes and mortgage were unconditionally delivered. But the law presumes delivery where notes are no longer in the hands of the maker. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6318.

An express warranty in an order for goods excludes any implied warranties. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 903.

A party to whom an order for goods, signed by him, is delivered, is held to know the contents of such order. Reeves v. Corrigan, 3 N.D. 415, 57 N.W. 80; Fahey v. Esterley Mach. Co. 3 N.D. 220, 44 Am. St. Rep. 554, 55 N.W. 580; Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Lincoln, 4 N.D. 410, 61 N.W. 145; Furneaux v. Esterly, 36 Kan. 539, 13 P. 824; Reeves & Co. v. Lewis, 25 S.D. 44, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 82, 125 N.W. 289; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Ebbighausen, 11 N.D. 470, 92 N.W. 826.

A general agent or branch house manager has no authority or power to modify a contract of his company, or change its provisions. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Ebbighausen, 11 N.D. 470, 92 N.W. 826; Fahey v. Esterley Mach. Co. 3 N.D. 220, 44 Am. St. Rep. 554, 55 N.W. 580; Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Lincoln, 4 N.D. 425, 61 N.W. 145; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Patterson, 137 Ky. 180, 125 S.W. 287.

The rendering of assistance in starting a machine, or repairing defects therein, does not affect or waive any provisions of the contract, or extend time of trial. Reeves v Corrigan, 3 N.D. 415, 57 N.W. 80; Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Lincoln, 4 N.D. 425, 61 N.W. 145; Fahey v. Esterley Mach. Co. 3 N.D. 220, 44 Am. St. Rep. 554, 55 N.W. 580; Heagney v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. 4 Neb. (Un...