Holterhoff v. Mead

Decision Date11 October 1886
Citation36 Minn. 42
PartiesAUGUSTUS HOLTERHOFF <I>vs.</I> WILLIAM L. MEAD and Wife.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Mumford. On January 9, 1873, Evans sold an undivided one-half to one Bass, and executed and delivered to him a bond for a deed. On October 1, 1873, Bass conveyed his interest to the plaintiff.

On January 15, 1874, Evans executed and delivered to plaintiff a conveyance of the whole tract of land, but with the understanding that Evans was still the owner of an undivided half.

On September 12, 1874, defendant bought of Evans the undivided half of the land so retained by him, and on the same day plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant a bond for a deed of such undivided half.

These purchases by plaintiff and by defendant were made expressly subject to the Mumford mortgage. On June 21, 1880, the premises were sold, under the power contained in that mortgage, to one William Mumford, who received the proper certificate of sale. On June 21, 1881, the last day for redeeming from the mortgage sale, the defendant, out of his own moneys, and for the purpose of effecting a redemption, paid to William Mumford the amount required to redeem from the sale, and took to himself and in his own name an assignment by William Mumford of the certificate of sale. Shortly before this time the defendant "gave plaintiff to understand that he would make such redemption for their joint benefit." At this time the land was and still is worth $18,000.

On March 5, 1882, one Chittenden, at defendant's request and with money furnished by him, purchased and took an assignment of the interest of the state in the land under the tax sale of September, 1881, and on February 6, 1884, Chittenden quitclaimed to defendant.

Judgment was ordered for plaintiff as prayed in the complaint, a new trial was refused, and the defendants appealed.

C. D. O'Brien and E. S. Chittenden, for appellants.

Warner, Stevens & Lawrence, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The appellants assign error in the findings of fact made by the court in two or three particulars, to which we do not deem it necessary to here refer. The findings are justified by the evidence.

The principal point of contention is as to whether, upon the facts of the case as found by the court, the payment made by the defendant Mead to the person who had purchased at the mortgage foreclosure sale, and the assignment of the purchaser's certificate of sale to Mead, had the effect, as to the plaintiff, of a redemption, or of a purchase strictly, ripening, upon the expiration of the time for redemption, into a title adverse and paramount to that of the plaintiff. The respondent claims that the decision of the court is sustained by the mere relation of these parties as tenants in common; that because of that relation the defendant was disabled, by an act hostile to the interests of his cotenant, to acquire title to himself, thereby divesting the plaintiff of his estate.

While the principle thus invoked is admitted by the defendant to be of controlling force in equity, where the several estates...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT