Turrell v. Warren
| Decision Date | 18 April 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 9 |
| Parties | ORLANDO B. TURRELL <I>vs.</I> GEORGE B. WARREN and another. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, under Gen. St. c. 75, § 1, to determine the adverse claims of the defendants to a portion of lot 6, in block 34, in the city of St. Paul, alleged in the complaint to be in the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant Charles Harbert, in his separate answer, alleged title in fee and right of possession in himself, and a wrongful eviction by the plaintiff. The defendant Warren, in his separate answer, claimed to have a lien on the premises by virtue of a mortgage made to him by Richard W. McCloud and John McCloud, jr., the former owners. The action was tried before Wilkin, J., who found as facts that on March 18, 1859, Richard W. McCloud and John McCloud, jr., were the owners in fee of the premises in question, and on that day mortgaged them to Israel G. Lash; and on August 11, 1859, they made a second mortgage to the defendant Warren, both mortgages being duly recorded. On October 24, 1859, the McClouds conveyed the premises to the defendant Harbert, by deed which was duly recorded. On July 31, 1860, Lash brought suit in the United States circuit court for Minnesota, to foreclose his mortgage, against the McClouds, Harbert and Warren, describing himself, in his bill, as a citizen of North Carolina, the McClouds as citizens of Minnesota, Warren as a citizen of New York, Harbert and John McCloud and Lewis Dumas, (who were also made defendants,) as citizens of Pennsylvania. The bill was taken as confessed by the defendants therein, and the cause referred to a master to take the proofs and report the amount due, upon the coming-in of whose report the cause was heard, on the bill and report, at the October term, 1860, and a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage and for a sale of the mortgaged property was entered, pursuant to which decree the premises were sold on June 17, 1861, to Lash, the mortgagee, which sale was confirmed by the court.
On January 24, 1865, no redemption having been made, the master who made the sale duly executed and delivered to Lash a deed of the premises, which was duly recorded.
At the date of the mortgage to Lash, the McClouds, the mortgagors, were residents and citizens of Minnesota. Richard W., in September, 1866, removed to Wisconsin, of which state he has ever since been a citizen and resident, and John removed, in the year 1871, to the same state, where he has ever since been a citizen and resident. Lash, at the date of the mortgage to him, was and ever since has been a citizen and resident of North Carolina. The defendant Warren has always been a citizen and resident of New York, and the defendant Harbert of Pennsylvania.
After the conveyance to Harbert, the McClouds remained in possession of the premises, with Harbert's consent, until after the sale under the decree, when, without Harbert's knowledge or consent, they surrendered possession to Lash, who held possession of the premises till November 18, 1867, when he conveyed to one Baird, who held possession till December 10, 1870, when he conveyed to the plaintiff, who has ever since been in the possession of the premises.
On these findings of fact, judgment was ordered and entered adjudging that neither of the defendants had any estate or interest in or claim to the premises, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
At the trial, the defendants, in due order of proof, each offered to show, by competent evidence, that in the suit of Lash against the McClouds and others in the federal court, the defendant Harbert was never served with process, and never appeared in the suit, and never knew of the pendency thereof. They each also offered to show, by competent evidence, that the record of such suit did not show any service of subpœna or other process therein on either of the defendants Harbert or Warren, or any appearance therein by them, except what was shown by the order in such suit taking the bill of complaint therein as confessed by the defendants, and by the final decree of the court therein. To each of these offers the plaintiff, objected, as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and to the first, on the additional ground that it contradicted the record of the decree and proceedings in said cause in the United States circuit court; the objections were sustained, and each of the defendants excepted. The order that the bill be taken pro confesso does not recite or state the service of any process, but merely recites the failure of the defendants to interpose any plea,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenfield v. Hill City Land, Loan Lumber Co.
...of the defendant, unless want of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the record. Basting v. Ankeny, 64 Minn. 133, 66 N. W. 266;Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9;McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 335, 340, 63 N. W. 880;Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U. S. 142, 38 Sup. Ct. 452, 62 L. Ed. 1038. We have exa......
-
Ballin v. J. & E. B. Friend Lace Importing Co.
...held that it was not the judgment of a foreign court. United States courts are not foreign within the state where they are held. Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9. To the same effect are the following cases: Wandling v. Straw, 25 W. Va. 705;Thomson v. County of Lee, 22 Iowa, 206;Town of St. Alb......
-
Greenfield v. Hill City Land
...of the defendant unless want of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the record. Basting v. Ankeny, 64 Minn. 133, 66 N.W. 266; Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9; McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 335, 340, 63 880; Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U.S. 142, 38 S.Ct. 452, 62 L.Ed. 1038. We have examined the ......
-
Davis v. Hudson
...intended to be out of the jurisdiction of such court, unless it affirmatively appears to be so. Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 221; Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9. For reasons we think this rule applicable to our probate courts. In the first place, they are, in fact, courts of superior jurisdi......