Trentor v. Pothen

• Decision Date: 08 June 1891
• Citation: 49 N.W. 129,46 Minn. 298
• Parties: TRENTOR v POTHEN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

46 Minn. 298

49 N.W. 129

TRENTORvPOTHEN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 8, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Evidence held not to justify the findings of fact.

2. To charge the principal with knowledge possessed by an agent, the facts of which the agent has notice must be within the scope of his agency, so that it is his duty to act upon them or communicate them to his principal.

3. Notice by an attorney, acquired in another transaction, of the pendency of a suit, which may affect the title to real property, cannot be imputed to one who employs him for the sole and special purpose of examining an abstract of the title of the property, and giving an opinion as to its sufficiency.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; KELLY, Judge.

Action by George C. Trentor, plaintiff, to recover from the defendant Lue V. Gregson, moneys alleged to have been expended in the improvement of certain real estate in behalf of defendant; for a partnership accounting; and praying that the amount found due be declared a specific lien upon the real estate described. Nicholas Pothen appeared as intervenor, alleging that he was the owner of the premises. The facts appearing on the trial showed that, in 1888, plaintiff and defendant, being the owners of a certain platted lot of land, entered into an agreement to build a double house thereon, each to bear one-half the expense. Subsequently they divided the lot, each taking a deed for a specific half, with the house thereon. In May, 1888, plaintiff brought an action against defendant similar to the present action, and filed a lis pendens therein. In November, 1888, this action was dismissed. In January, 1889, the present action was commenced, but no new lis pendens was filed. In February the intervenor purchased defendant's half of the lot and house, and obtained a deed therefor, having no actual notice of the pending suit. The attorneys for the defendant in both actions acted as attorneys for the intervenor in the matter of the purchase, and examined the title for him. The court before whom, without a jury, the action was tried, found for the plaintiff. From the judgment entered in accordance therewith the intervenor appeals.

F. Barta, for appellant.

Henry Johns and D. F. Peebles, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The brief for the appellant, intervenor, is somewhat obscure and disconnected in its statements, but we do not understand counsel to deny that plaintiff would be entitled to a lien on these premises as against the defendant or his grantees with notice, but his contention is that his client is protected as a bona fide purchaser for value. Consequently the only question necessary to be considered is whether the evidence justified the court in finding that the intervenor purchased with notice of plaintiff's rights. Nothing can be claimed from the notice of lis pendens filed in a former suit, which was dismissed before plaintiff purchased. It was only constructive notice of the pendency of the action in which it was filed. The court found that plaintiff was in possession of the premises when intervenor purchased them, and that this should have put him upon inquiry. The record purports to contain all the evidence, and, while we find evidence that plaintiff was in possession of his own premises, (the north half of the lot,) we are unable to find a particle that he was in possession of defendant's premises, (the south half of the lot.) Hence the finding cannot be sustained on that ground. The only other ground upon which it is sought to sustain it is that the attorney who examined the title to the property for the intervenor before he purchased was also the attorney for the defendant in this...