Warren v. Ward

• Decision Date: 08 January 1904
• Docket Number: Nos. 13,717 - (124).,s. 13,717 - (124).
• Citation: 91 Minn. 254
• Parties: ANNIE C. WARREN v. JAMES H. WARD and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 254

91 Minn. 254

ANNIE C. WARREN v. JAMES H. WARD and Others.¹

Nos. 13,717 - (124).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 8, 1904.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Mille Lacs county, Searles, J., denying a motion to satisfy and discharge of record a judgment for $1,484.68 theretofore entered and docketed against defendants in favor of plaintiff. Reversed and remanded.

Carl F. J. Goebel and A. E. Helmick, for appellants.

Charles Keith, for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

Motion to have a judgment satisfied and discharged of record, upon the claim that such relief should be granted as a matter of equitable right, under G. S. 1894, § 5435. The motion was denied by the court below, and this appeal is from that order.

The application to have the judgment discharged was based upon a showing by affidavits of the applicants from which it appeared that on July 19, 1892, respondent agreed to convey to appellants, for the sum of $3,000, one hundred twenty acres of land, $1,000 of the purchase money being paid on the execution of the contract, while $500 was to be paid on November 1, 1893, with three further payments, of $500 each, annually on July 19 of each succeeding year, until the whole thereof was paid, with interest and taxes, upon the condition, among other things, that, in case of the failure of the purchasers to make either of the payments or interest, the whole portion became due, and the vendor might, at her option, declare a forfeiture, which should be sufficient to cancel all obligations entered into between the parties, and reinvest her with title to the property, and the right to re-enter and take possession of the premises. Appellants thereafter paid portions of the interest, but defaulted in the two next payments, upon which suit was brought. They were absent from the state, and upon their default judgment was entered against them and docketed. A transcript was thereafter sent to Oregon, where they resided, and there sought to be enforced. This is the judgment which the appellants seek to have here vacated and set aside.

While the matter was in this situation, and after this judgment had been entered, the owner of the land (respondent) brought suit to enforce the forfeiture in the purchase contract, and to recover the property, under the stringent provisions therein authorizing that remedy. The complaint in this latter suit sets forth the right of the plaintiff therein to the relief prayed for, resting wholly upon an enforcement of her rights under the forfeiture clause. No answer was interposed, and judgment was entered for plaintiff, as well as for the recovery of the property.

The motion to vacate was served upon the attorney for the respondent who appeared within the proper time, and the statements set forth in the accompanying affidavits of the moving parties, showing the facts above set forth, were not in any way controverted or disputed, and it is insisted that, as a matter of right, they require a cancellation of the money judgment, upon the ground that, in equity and good conscience, it should not be enforced, since the remedy sought and granted in the action to have the contract annulled and for possession of the property discharged the appellants from all obligations to pay any further portion of...