Oliver v. Hedderly

Decision Date29 November 1884
Citation32 Minn. 455,21 N.W. 478
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court


Appeal from an order of the district court of Hennepin county, denying motion for new trial.

A. T. Ankeny, for respondent, Theresa J. Oliver.

Secombe, Southerland & Herring, for appellant, Alfred H. Hedderly.


Edwin Hedderly was the owner of certain real estate in Minneapolis, subject to a mortgage for $6,000, and July 23, 1879, made an agreement in writing with defendant to convey to him an undivided half, subject to the mortgage, and to give him possession of the whole, the net income to be divided between them. Defendant had ever since been in possession, and received and appropriated to his own use the rents and profits. May 30, 1880, Edwin died intestate, leaving these parties and eight others his heirs. One of them, George A. Hedderly, was appointed administrator. Afterwards defendant instituted proceedings in the probate court to enforce specific performance of the father's agreement to convey, and the decree of the probate court adjudging specific performance was, on appeal to the district court, affirmed January 9, 1883. September 30, 1881, defendant entered into a written agreement with E. B. Alexander, who then held the mortgage for $6,000, by which the latter agreed at once to foreclose the mortgage, bid in the property himself, and, after the time to redeem expired, if the property was not redeemed, to convey it to defendant on being paid the amount then due on the mortgage. The mortgage was, accordingly, foreclosed November 26, 1881, and the property conveyed March 9, 1883, by Alexander to defendant, the latter paying $7,819.83, the amount of the mortgage, with interest and costs.

At the time of the agreement with Alexander, defendant and the other heirs were co-tenants of the land, although the extent of his interest as such co-tenant may have been disputed, his rights under his contract with the father being in controversy. There was no denial that he was a co-tenant as a co-heir of the father. Co-tenancy created by descent from a common ancestor does not come within any recognized exception to the rule that the relation is confidential in its nature, raising an obligation on the part of each co-tenant to sustain, or at any rate not to assail, the common interest. This obligation disables each to buy in and secure to his own exclusive benefit, without the consent of the others, any outstanding incumbrance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Sharples Corporation v. Sinclair Wyoming Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1946
    ... ... Such ... relationship only prevents the purchase of an interest ... hostile to the common title. In Oliver v. Hedderly, ... 32 Minn. 455, 21 N.W. 478, we adopted the general rule that ... one cotenant cannot assert for his own benefit title to the ... ...
  • Stamps v. Frost
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 22 Febrero 1918
    ... ... Affirmed ...          Bradburn ... & Basham, of Bowling Green, for appellants ...          Gilliam ... & Gilliam and Oliver & Dixon, all of Scottsville, for ... appellees ...          MILLER, ...          At the ... time of his death, which occurred ... Thorn, 25 Tex. 728, 78 Am.Dec. 552; Cedar Canyon ... Con. Min. Co. v. Yarwood, 27 Wash. 271, 67 P. 749, 91 ... Am.St.Rep. 841; Oliver v. Hedderly, 32 Minn. 455, 21 ... N.W. 478, Ryason v. Dunten, 164 Ind. 85, 73 N.E. 74; ... Lee v. Fox, 6 Dana, 172 ...          In the ... ...
  • Wheeler v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 1898
    ...and costs of foreclosure, and that a purchase made under such circumstances will inure to the benefit of the co-tenants. Oliver v. Hedderly, 32 Minn. 455, 21 N.W. 478. Wright v. Sperry, 21 Wis. 336, Mrs. Sperry, one of the defendants, being the owner of an undivided one-fourth of a tract of......
  • Slagle v. Slagle
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 12 Agosto 1932
    ...gets title to the whole. Powers v. Sherry, 115 Minn. 290, 132 N. W. 210. There is a fiduciary relation between cotenants. Oliver v. Hedderly, 32 Minn. 455, 21 N. W. 478; Hoyt v. Lightbody, 98 Minn. 189, 108 N. W. 843, 116 Am. St. Rep. 358, 8 Ann. Cas. 984; Murray v. Murray, 159 Minn. 111, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT