Lane v. Holmes

• Decision Date: 29 November 1893
• Citation: Lane v. Holmes, 55 Minn. 379, 57 N. W. 132 (Minn. 1893)
• Parties: LANE v. HOLMES.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

55 Minn. 379

57 N.W. 132

LANE

v.HOLMES.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 29, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1.While it is a general rule that for a mistake of law, pure and simple, there is no remedy or relief, yet where the surrounding circumstances are of such a nature that the adverse party is seeking to avail himself of the opportunities afforded by the mistake, and attempting to enforce an unconscionable advantage without consideration, and the other party is not blamable, equitable relief can in such case be afforded to the party so mistaken if the other party is not thereby injured, and such mistake need not be mutual.

2.Where there is a mistake of fact, or a mistake of law and fact combined, equitable relief can be granted, especially if such relief does not result in injury to the opposite party.

3.Where, by reason of a mistake in the computation of interest on a note secured by a mortgage, there is claimed to be due in the notice of foreclosure sale a larger sum than is legally due, and the premises are bid in by the mortgagee for the sum so claimed, but in good faith, believing that he is only bidding for the sum actually due, and the mortgagor is attempting to recover by action against the mortgagee, as surplus, the excessive interest so computed and included in the sum bid, and the premises are of less value than the sum actually and legally due, the mortgagee may be afforded equitable relief, and a resale ordered.

4.In such case the value of the use of the mortgaged premises after the first foreclosure and the expiration of the time for redemption by the mortgagee in actual possession with the actual or implied assent of the mortgagor, need not be tendered to the mortgagor before such resale, for, being a mortgagee so in possession after the conditions broken, he is rightfully there, and the mortgagor could not recover possession without satisfying the mortgage.

Appeal from district court, Clay county; Searles, Judge.

Action by Mary Cole Lane against John W. Holmes to recover an amount for which mortgaged premises were sold, alleged to be in excess of the amount actually due.There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Modified.

W. B. Douglas, for appellant.

J. E. Greene, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

The plaintiff and her husband executed to the defendant a promissory note as follows: “$3,000.00.Moorhead, July 10, 1885.Five years after date I promise to pay to the order of John W. Holmes three thousand dollars, at Fulton Bank, New York, value received, with interest before and after maturity at the rate of - per cent. per annum until paid.Alpheus F. Lane.Mary Cole Lane.”At the same time they executed a mortgage on the northeast quarter of section 32, in township 139 north of range 48, in Clay county, in this state, to secure the payment of said note, which mortgage contains this clause: “Provided, nevertheless, that if said Mary Cole Lane and Alpheus F. Lane, parties of the first part, their heirs, shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid to the party of the second part, his heirs, the sum of three thousand dollars and interest, according to the conditions of one promissory note in the amount of $3,000, made, executed, and delivered by said Mary Cole Lane and Alpheus F. Lane to said John W. Holmes, due five years after date, which said note is without interest, bearing even date herewith.”There being default in the payment of the note, or any part thereof, the defendant, residing in the state of New York, sent the note and mortgage to an attorney of Moorhead, Minn., with instructions to foreclose the mortgage, but without instructions as to the amount due.The attorney foreclosed the mortgage, and in the notice of such foreclosure proceedings it was claimed that there was due upon said note and mortgage the sum of $4,102, which amount was arrived at by computing interest upon the note at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum from the date thereof to the date of the notice of foreclosure sale; and the said premises were bid off, December 15, 1890, for that sum, with expense of foreclosure added, amounting to $4,222.34.The premises were bid in by the defendant's attorney for and in the name of defendant in good faith, and without any design on the part of the defendant or his said attorney to defraud or injure plaintiff, or prejudice her interests or rights in the premises, as the said premises at the time of such foreclosure sale were not of greater value than $2,500, and never were, at any time between the time of such sale and the time of the commencement of this action, of greater value than $3,000.The defendant did not know until after such foreclosure sale that such interest had been included in the amount for which said premises were so bid in for him by his attorney, as it was the purpose and intent of the defendant by such foreclosure to extinguish the indebtedness of the plaintiff and her husband to him under said note and mortgage; and that the only instructions he gave to his said attorney in the foreclosure proceedings were that the premises should be bid in for the defendant for the full amount due, regardless of the value of the mortgaged premises, it not being the intention of the defendant at the time of the execution of the mortgage to charge interest upon the indebtedness thereby secured, nor the understanding of the plaintiff that interest should be charged thereupon.There was no redemption from such foreclosure sale, and the plaintiff did not have actual notice of the sale or the amount bid until six months subsequent to the time of such sale, although her brother was her tenant, and cultivating the premises during the foreclosure proceedings, and boarded near said farm, and...