Williams v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 11 March 1879 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 516 |
| Parties | Cecilia A. Williams and Husband v. Gardner Stewart and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Wabasha county, where the action was tried before Mitchell J., who found the facts, in substance, as follows:
On November 3, 1863, the plaintiffs, being husband and wife executed to the defendant Stewart a mortgage of certain real estate in Wabasha county, described in the complaint, and owned in fee by the plaintiff George H. Williams. On October 20, 1869, the plaintiff George H. executed to the defendant Stewart a second mortgage of the same real estate, in which his wife did not join. Default having been made in the conditions of both mortgages, the defendant Stewart foreclosed both mortgages in one action, and on August 26 1871, under the judgment therein, the premises were sold, to satisfy both mortgages, and were purchased by defendant Stewart for $ 1,153.50. The sale was duly confirmed, on September 26, 1871, and on October 6, 1871, Stewart received the proper certificate of sale, which was duly recorded.
Soon afterwards, and prior to August, 1872, the plaintiff George H. removed to Minneapolis, where he has since resided leaving his wife, the plaintiff Cecilia A. Williams, in possession of the premises, to manage and do with them as she saw fit, and for her exclusive benefit, he abandoning the exercise of any further control over them. This arrangement was wholly verbal, the defendant George H. having made no conveyance of his interest in the premises.
In the autumn of 1872, and prior to September 26th, on application of the plaintiff Cecilia A., who had continued to occupy the premises since her husband's departure, and who desired to redeem from the mortgage sale, the defendant Stewart verbally agreed with her that she might have the land for the amount at which he had bid it in at the mortgage sale, with interest at 12 per cent. from the date of such sale, she to pay all taxes assessed on the land, and to pay $ 500 of the agreed price within one year from the date of the agreement, upon which payment Stewart was to execute to her a deed of the premises, and take back a mortgage for the residue of the price. No special time was agreed on for the making of the deferred payments.
The plaintiff, relying on this verbal agreement, made no attempt to redeem the property within the year allowed by statute. She continued in possession under the agreement, cultivating the land, and making various payments to Stewart, under the agreement, from time to time, as she was able, between October 9, 1872, and July 11, 1875, the total amount so paid by her being $ 500. On February 11, 1876, while she continued in possession, the defendant Stewart conveyed portions of the land to the other defendants.
As conclusions of law, the court held that the agreement between Mrs. Williams and the defendant Stewart amounted merely to an extension of the time for redemption, and was, therefore, not within the statute of frauds; that by accepting payments from her after the expiration of the time fixed in the verbal agreement, Stewart was precluded from taking advantage of her failure to pay the full sum of $ 500 within the time therein limited; and that her actual occupancy of the land was notice to Stewart's grantees of her rights therein. Judgment was accordingly...
To continue reading
Request your trial