Wilson v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 26 October 1886 |
| Citation | 29 N.W. 887,36 Minn. 59 |
| Parties | Hudson Wilson and others, Executors, v. A. P. Jamison, impleaded, etc |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the district court for Waseca county, where the action was tried before Buckham, J without a jury.
Judgment affirmed.
William Ely Bramhall, for appellants.
B. S Lewis, for respondent.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage given in 1875 by the defendant Gadient, the owner of the land, to McCutchen, of whose estate the plaintiffs are executors. In 1880 the defendant Jamison recovered a judgment, which was docketed in the county in which the land in question is situated, against the mortgagor, Gadient. From the findings of the court, it further appears that in August, 1881, under the law of 1881 relating to forfeited lands, judgment was rendered charging this land with taxes for the year 1875, and several subsequent years, and the land was sold under such tax judgment in September, 1881; this defendant Jamison being the purchaser, and receiving the proper certificate of sale. Tax judgments were also rendered against the land in 1882, 1883 and 1884, for the delinquent taxes of 1881, 1882, and 1883, respectively. Sales were made of the land under each of these judgments, to persons who purchased in behalf of Jamison, and who afterwards assigned to him the interest acquired by them by such purchases. During all this time Jamison was the owner of the judgment, which was a lien upon a portion of the land, 80 acres of the tract being a homestead. At the time of the recovery of the judgment against Gadient, and until after the commencement of this action, Gadient resided upon the land.
The court determined that, by the tax sales in 1881 and 1882, no redemption having been made, Jamison acquired title in fee, and that he holds the same discharged of the mortgage, and that a foreclosure sale of the mortgaged premises should therefore not be decreed. Judgment was entered accordingly, in which title in fee was adjudged to be in Jamison, discharged from the lien of the mortgage. This appeal is from the judgment.
It is urged that in this action there could be no such adjudication in favor of Jamison, and Banning v Bradford, 21 Minn. 308, is relied upon as supporting this position. It may be conceded that the complaint does not tender an issue as to the validity of the tax judgments or sales, but only whether the judgment creditor, as a purchaser at the tax sales, (assuming the judgments and sales to have been valid,) stood in any other position as to the mortgagee than one having a junior lien or estate, with a right to redeem from the mortgage. But, taking into consideration the answer and the reply, the issues joined were broad enough to enable the parties to litigate, and the court to adjudicate, as to the validity of Jamison's asserted title, if the parties could in such an action submit such an issue, and if the court could entertain it; and it is to be here presumed, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial