Hull v. King

• Citation: 38 Minn. 349
• Parties: A. E. HULL <I>vs.</I> WILLIAM S. KING.
• Decision Date: 30 April 1888
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 349

38 Minn. 349

A. E. HULL vs. WILLIAM S. KING.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 30, 1888.

Action to set aside a mortgage sale under a power, brought in the district court for Hennepin county, and tried by Lochren, J., upon whose decision judgment was entered for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.

By the terms of the mortgage, the mortgagors, in consideration of $5,350, convey all "the following described lots," according to the plat, etc., "each of said lots being conveyed and mortgaged respectively for the specific sum set opposite to it in the following tabular description of the premises herein and hereby mortgaged, and for no other sum whatever, except the interest and attorney's fees and charges hereinafter mentioned in case of foreclosure, to wit:

                "No. of Lot.              No. of Block.             Sum mortgaged for
                "Lot one (1)         In Block twenty nine                 $750."
                

The list included six other lots entered in the same way, four of them being mortgaged for $750 each, and two for $800 each.

The condition of the mortgage is for payment of $5,350, in five years, "according to the terms and conditions of seven promissory notes * * * for the respective amounts aforesaid set opposite to the several lots hereinbefore mentioned." And it is further stated as "the intention hereof that this mortgage shall be regarded and is hereby made a separate and distinct instrument and mortgage for each and every of the lots hereinbefore described," etc. It appeared from the sheriff's certificate of sale, and the court found, that the lots were offered separately, without bidders, before they were offered in gross.

Gordon E. Cole, for appellant.

Harlan P. Roberts, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The plaintiff sought to have a foreclosure by advertisement set aside, upon the grounds (1) that the notice of sale was not published in a "newspaper," within the meaning of the statute; (2) that the whole seven lots covered by mortgage were sold together in bulk for a gross sum.

1. The notice of sale was published in the "Northwestern Presbyterian." The evidence is not returned, but the finding of the court is that this is "a publication issued once in each week, in Minneapolis, Hennepin county, Minnesota, and contains principally religious news, and especially reading of interest to Presbyterians; that said paper contains one column each week devoted to the general news of the day, embracing every sort of news of interest to the general reader." We assume that this means that it is similar to the ordinary so-called religious papers, which, while their chief object is the dissemination of religious news, and especially such as would be of interest to some particular denomination, contain also, more or less in full, the general current news of the day. As was said by this court in Beecher v. Stephens, 25 Minn. 146: "Newspapers are of so many varieties that it would be next to impossible to give any brief definition which...