Marcotte v. Hartman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Carlton county, where the action (brought to set aside a foreclosure by advertisement) was tried by Stearns, J.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The act of March 1, 1883, (Laws 1883, c. 112,) must be read in connection with the statutory provisions for the foreclosure of mortgages by advertisement. The act provides that “no such sale shall be held invalid or set aside by reason of any defect in the notice thereof, or in the publication or posting of such notice, or in the proceedings of the officer making such sale, unless the action in which the validity of such sale shall be called in question be commenced, or the defence alleging its invalidity be interposed, within five years after the date of such sale: * * * provided, that such…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Badger v. BadgerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Humphrey v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Learned v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Jewell v. TruhnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Depew v. C. B. DeweyNew York Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fritz v. FritzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Wall v. MeilkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Brockman v. BrockmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Sweet v. LowrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Sweet v. LowrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.