Mitchell v. Green
| Decision Date | 13 February 1914 |
| Citation | 145 N.W. 404,125 Minn. 24 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. GREEN et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; E. F. Waite, Judge.
Action by Dean Coleman Mitchell against J. H. Green and others. From denial of new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Where the assignee, under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, made a sale of real estate in which all parties in interest acquiesced, the discharge of the assignee by the court, on the ground that he had fully performed his trust, will be deemed an approval of such sale as against an objection raised more than 10 years later by a stranger to both the assignment proceedings and the title.
An assignment for the benefit of creditors in the exercise of a common-law right, and the assignee derives his title and power of sale from the deed of assignment and not from the statute. The statute merely regulates the manner of creating and executing the trust. If the assignee made the conveyance in question without the court having approved the sale, such conveyance was not void, buy only voidable; and, all parties in interest having acquiesced therein, the title vested in the grantee.
To constitute adverse possession of real estate, the possession must have been maintained under the claim of ownership. If the one in possession recognized and conceded that, in fact, the title was in another, and not in himself, such possession was not adverse. Held, that the evidence sustains the finding that defendant's possession was not adverse to the true owner. J. M. Pulliam, of Minneapolis, for appellants.
Jesse Van Valkenburg, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
This is an action to determine adverse claims to lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of block 3 in Ree's addition to Minneapolis. Plaintiff alleged that she is the owner and entitled to the possession of the lots, and that they are vacant and unoccupied, except that defendant Green had wrongfully trespassed upon and used them to some extent. Defendant Green, the only defendant who interposed an answer, denied plaintiff's title, alleged title in himself, and asked judgment establishing and confirming such title. The court found that plaintiff is the owner in fee of the lots free and clear from any claim or interest on the part of defendant, and directed judgment accordingly. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and he appealed.
The former owners of the property were residents of and engaged in business in the state of Iowa. They became financially embarrassed and made a general assignment for the benefit of their cerditors to one Matt Gaasch on September 18, 1896. The deed of assignment contained a full power of sale. At the opening of the trial, it was stipulated that the ‘record title’ to the property in controversy vested in Gaasch, under this assignment, free and clear of all incumbrances. On April 14, 1902, Gaasch, as assignee, executed a proper deed of conveyance to one Mitchell, and Mitchell thereafter executed a warranty deed to plaintiff.
Defendant's claim of title is based solely upon the assertion that he had been in adverse possession of the premises for the full statutory period; but he attacks plaintiff's title upon the ground that the assignee made the sale to Mitchell without complying with the requirements of the Iowa statutes. The objections urged are that the land was sold at private sale without notice, and that the sale was not confirmed by the Iowa court. The provision of the Iowa Code upon which defendant relies is as follows: ‘Assignee may dispose of and sell real estate assigned and do generally whatever the debtor may have done in the premises; but no sale of real estate belonging to said trust shall be made without notice, published as in cases of sales of real estate on execution, unless the court or judge shall otherwise order, and no such sales shall be valid until approved by such court or judge.’
[1] 1. In January, 1897, the court made an order authorizing the assignee to sell real estate at private sale without notice, but required such sales to be submitted to the court for approval before becoming final. Whether the sale in question was reported to and approved by the court does not appear, at least directly. In June, 1902, Gaasch made his final report and asked that he be discharged and his bond exonerated. In this report, under date of May 18, 1902, he charged himself with a lump sum received from the sale of 66 lots in Minneapolis, but did not describe the lots. On July 8, 1902, the court approved this report and made an order finally discharging the assignee upon his doing certain things specified therein and filing certain vouchers. He was discharged more than 10 years ago, and his doings as assignee do not appear ever to have been questioned either by creditors of the assignors or by any one else interested therein or affected thereby. In view of these facts, we think that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial