Martin v. Sprague

• Decision Date: 06 January 1882
• Citation: 11 N.W. 143,29 Minn. 53
• Parties: Francis Martin v. James L. Sprague and others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

11 N.W. 143

29 Minn. 53

Francis Martin v. James L. Sprague and others

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 6, 1882

Cross appeals from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action was tried by Young, J., without a jury.

Chas J. Bartleson, for plaintiff.

Samuel R. Thayer, for defendants.

OPINION

Dickinson, J.

This action, being at issue upon the complaint and answer, was submitted to the court below for judgment upon an agreed statement of the facts. The facts are as follows In January, 1879, James L. Sprague was the owner of lots 11 and 12, in block 4, of Highland Park addition to Minneapolis. Upon lot 12 was a dwelling-house, in which Sprague and his wife, Angeline M., then and ever since resided, and that lot constituted his homestead under the laws of this state. It is of the value of $ 2,000. Lot 11 is unimproved, and is of the value of $ 400. In January, 1879, Sprague and his wife mortgaged the whole property to one Greene to secure the payment of the sum of $ 1,200. An installment of interest falling due and not being paid, Greene proceeded to foreclose the mortgage under the power contained therein. The foreclosure sale was made on the 22nd day of November, 1879 and both lots were sold in one parcel, Greene being the purchaser, for the sum of $ 132.75. Greene received and placed on record the usual sheriff's certificate of sale. On the 19th day of November, 1880, Mrs. Sprague paid to Greene the amount for which the property had been sold, with interest, and took from Greene assignments of the certificate of sale and of the mortgage, and placed the same on record in the office of the register of deeds. The money paid to Greene by Mrs. Sprague was furnished to her by her husband. In July, 1879, one Littler recovered a judgment against Sprague for $ 122.24, which was docketed in the district court, and became a lien upon the real property of the debtor, excepting the homestead. November 18, 1880, Littler sold and assigned his judgment to the plaintiff, Martin. Martin, having complied with the requirements of the statute as to redemptions from mortgage sales by judgment creditors, on the 24th day of November, 1880, for the purpose of making redemption, paid to the sheriff of the proper county the sum necessary to make redemption, -- that is, the amount for which the property had been sold on foreclosure sale, with interest, -- and received from the sheriff the statutory certificate of redemption.

Upon these facts, the rights of the parties plaintiff and defendant, in respect to the property, being in question, judgment was rendered adjudging the plaintiff to be the owner of lot 11 in fee; that defendants had no title or interest therein, and that plaintiff recover possession of it; that the defendants were the owners in fee of lot 12; and that plaintiff had no interest therein. Both parties appealed from the judgment. We are called upon to consider the legal effect of the transaction with Greene on the 19th of November, 1880, and to determine whether it should be construed as an assignment of the right held by Greene under the certificate of sale, leaving the right of redemption by a judgment creditor of the mortgagor unextinguished, or as a redemption from the sale by one of the mortgagors, in effect annulling the sale.

Mrs Sprague, being the wife of James L. Sprague, the owner of the land, and as such having an interest in the property, although inchoate, had a right to redeem from the foreclosure of the mortgage which she had executed with her husband. Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516. Having a right of property which she transferred by the mortgage, she had the corresponding right of discharging the encumbrances by redemption. But she was capable, too, of acquiring by purchase the interest which Greene held under his mortgage and the foreclosure sale. The plaintiff claims the transaction to have been such a purchase. The defendants contend in this court that it should be construed as a redemption, although in their answer in this action they aver that the money furnished to Mrs. Sprague by her husband was owing to her from him, and that she in good faith purchased the certificate of sale and the mortgage; that she still owns and holds the mortgage, and that it is still in force; and that it was the purpose of these defendants that she should acquire title to the homestead. Such a purpose to acquire title to the homestead, by means of the payment to Greene, could be accomplished only by a purchase, and not by a mere redemption from Greene; for by a redemption by the mortgagor the sale would be annulled, and the rights acquired under it extinguished. Hence, the pleading must be construed as an averment of an intention to purchase and...