Johnson v. Avery

• Decision Date: 06 February 1895
• Citation: 60 Minn. 262,62 N.W. 283
• Parties: JOHNSON v. AVERY ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

60 Minn. 262

62 N.W. 283

JOHNSON

v.AVERY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 6, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Real estate valued at not less than $8,000 was sold at a partition sale for the sum of $1,500. Held, that the sale was for such a grossly inadequate price as to raise an inference of unfairness, and that the sale should be set aside.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Charles E. Otis, Judge.

Action by Charles G. Johnson against Mary I. Avery and others. From an order confirming the referee's report of the sale of the premises in question, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Joseph T. Avery, for appellants.

William G. White, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

This action was brought for the partition of the south one-third of lots Nos. 6 and 7 of block No. 2 in Roberts & Randall's addition to St. Paul, upon which lots are situate a dwelling house and barn, and the same are rented for $20 per month. The complaint also prays for a sale of the premises, for the alleged reason that they are so situated that a partition cannot well be made. There are six owners of the premises, of whom two defendants were under the age of 14 years at the time of the commencement of this action, in the month of October, 1892. The plaintiff owns three-fifteenths of the premises. Pursuant to a judgment of the lower court, the premises were sold on the 16th day of June, 1893, and bid in by this plaintiff for the sum of $2,000, and which sale the court refused to confirm, and upon appeal this court affirmed the order of the lower court in so doing. 57 N. W. 217. Afterwards, and on the 15th day of June, 1894, the premises were again offered for sale, and bid off by this plaintiff for the sum of $1,500, and the court made an order confirming the referee's report of the sale. From this order the defendants appeal, and their contention is that, under the statute, the sale should not have been confirmed; that the price bid was grossly inadequate; and that it would be inequitable to allow the sale to stand.

The property is worth at least $8,000. It was satisfactorily established to the court, after the first sale, that the exceptional financial stringency prevailing at the time, and which paralyzed real-estate sales, prevented a sale at a reasonable price, and the court, in its discretion, refused to confirm the sale. Within six months after this order was affirmed, there was a resale of the premises, upon a bid at 25 per cent. less than the former one, and the record does not show any change for the better as to the financial stringency and the sale of real estate. So far as anything does appear, the depression in real-estate sales continued until the time of the second sale. Upon the interest of one of the defendants there is a mortgage of $1,588.52; and upon the interests of three others of the defendants there is a mortgage of $1,113; and upon the interests of the other two owners, one of whom is the plaintiff, there are no liens, by mortgage or otherwise. One of the defendants, who is an appellant, owns three-fifteenths of the property, free from any incumbrance. This share is presumed to be worth three-fifteenths of the value of the whole property, or the sum of $1,600, $100 more than the bid for the whole premises. Certainly, such a sale would be grossly unjust to him, and he is one of the appellants. This property was bringing a rental of $240 per annum. The bid on the last sale, viz. $1,500, if invested, would, at the legal rate of interest of 7 per cent. per annum, bring an income of only $105 annually, or considerably less than one-half of the rental income from the premises. The three defendants who resist the confirmation of the sale own more than half of the...