Sardeson v. Menage
| Decision Date | 19 July 1889 |
| Parties | Joseph Sardeson v. Henry G. Menage |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action to determine defendant's adverse claim to vacant land brought in the district court for Hennepin county and tried by Hicks, J., upon whose findings and order judgment was entered for defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Jackson Atwater & Hill, for appellant.
Kitchel Cohen & Shaw, for respondent.
Plaintiff is the assignee and holder of a sheriff's certificate of sale upon mortgage foreclosure. The mortgaged premises were duly sold under a power of sale to the assignor of plaintiff, on the 11th day of December, 1886. The defendant is the holder of a subsequent mortgage upon the same premises, and claims that the premises were duly redeemed from the foreclosure sale referred to by the mortgagor or his grantee, and the sale thereby annulled. The validity of this redemption is called in question by the plaintiff. If the redemption was valid and effectual, plaintiff's title or interest in the premises is extinguished, and defendant has a first mortgage lien; while, on the other hand, if the redemption proceedings were defective and legally insufficient, plaintiff's title has become absolute, and defendant's right of redemption is gone, and his mortgage cut off. The redemption was made on the 5th day of August, 1887, by the mortgagor in the name of his grantee, by the consent of the latter, and pursuant to a mutual arrangement between them, and their right to redeem at that time is not questioned.
1. The sheriff of Hennepin county on that day accepted, in payment of the amount then due for the redemption of the premises, a bank check therefor, treating it as payment in money, and deposited the same in bank as such, and it was paid in due course within three days thereafter, and the plaintiff was duly notified of the redemption on the day it was made. This took place four months before the expiration of the year allowed for redemption. The plaintiff has never accepted the redemption money, and the same is still in the sheriff's hands, subject to his order.
The first and chief objection to the validity of the redemption is the acceptance by the sheriff of the bank check in lieu of the amount of money called for by it. We think, upon the facts found in this case, the transaction was equivalent to the receipt of a payment in money by the sheriff. He was doubtless satisfied that the check was made by a responsible party, upon a solvent bank, from which the money could be drawn immediately. The transaction was in conformity with the ordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial