Standish v. Vosberg
| Decision Date | 13 September 1880 |
| Parties | STANDISH v VOSBERG. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from order of district court, county of Goodhue.
F. W. Hoyt, for appellant.
J. W. Bass, for respondent.
In this case the mortgagee, the plaintiff, had proceeded to forclose under the power, to collect an instalment of interest, due, by sale of the real estate mortgaged.
Before the time to redeem from such sale expired, the mortgagor redeemed. This action was subsequently brought to foreclose the mortgage against the same property for the remainder of the debt. The complaint set forth what had been done in respect to foreclosing for the instalment. On demurrer to the complaint it was claimed that the lien of the mortgage was wholly exhausted by those proceedings.
The court below, perhaps misled by the language of this court in Fowler v. Johnson, 3 N. W. REP. (N. S.) 986, held this to be the case and sustained the demurrer. We allowed a reargument of that question in this case and also in Fowler v. Johnson. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of that decision. In that case we decided that a foreclosure sale, even for an instalment, exhausted the lien of the mortgage on the tract sold; that there can be but one sale of the same tract under the mortgage, though it be payable in instalments. We did not intend, however, to give that effect to an invalid sale, nor to one which has been made void, nor to any incomplete sale.
It has always been held by this court that under the statute a foreclosure is not complete, so as to operate as a sale, until the time allowed by statute for redemption has expired; that till then the title does not pass. Daniels v. Smith, 4 Minn. 172;Donnelly v. Simonton, 7 Minn. 169;Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 289.
The statute has always been that a redemption by the owner, his heirs, or assigns “annuls the sale.” In Daniels v. Smith a mortgage on one tract, payable in three instalments, was foreclosed under the power for the first instalment, and the owner redeemed. The second instalment was satisfied without recourse to the mortgage, and the mortgage afterwards foreclosed under the power for the third instalment. It was claimed that the first foreclosure proceedings exhausted the lien. The court held that they did not, and said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Dakota Horse & Cattle Company v. Serumgard
...so as to enable the owner of the mortgage to recover possession of the real property without a foreclosure." And in Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 175, 6 N.W. 489, it held that a foreclosure is not complete, so as to operate as a sale, until the time allowed by statute for redemption has exp......
-
Cavers v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co.
...14 Am. Rep. 521; Kimmell v. Willard, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 217; Miles v. Skinner, 42 Mich. 181; Smith v. Smith, 32 Ill. 198; Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 175, 6 N. W. 489; Fowler v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 338, 3 N. W. 986, 6 N. W. 486; McLean v. Presley, 56 Ala. We sustain this contention. This bring......
-
Flanders v. Aumack
... ... judgment debtor himself. Warren v. Fish, 7 Minn. 432 ... (Gil. 347), and Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 175, 6 ... N.W. 489, are to the same effect. In Indiana it is held that ... a redemption by one having a conveyance ... ...
-
Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. v. Haskell
...and foreclosure may be had, and the land may be sold subsequently for satisfaction of the other installments. Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 175, 6 N. W. 489;Dupee v. Salt Lake Valley Loan & Trust Co. (Utah) 57 Pac. 845, 77 Am. St. Rep. 902; 2 Jones, Mortgages, sec. 1459. Hence appellees mus......