Daniels v. Smith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities for Plaintiffs in Error: Fi/rst. — The District Court erred in holding the said mortgage sale was regular and the notice thereof good. 1. Because, said notice of sale could not be legall/y given after the commencement of proceedings at law to recover any part of the debt secured by said mortgage.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities for Plaintiffs in Error: Fi/rst. — The District Court erred in holding the said mortgage sale was regular and the notice thereof good. 1. Because, said notice of sale could not be legall/y given after the commencement of proceedings at law to recover any part of the debt secured by said mortgage. See Collated Statutes, page 643, Sec. 1 and, 2. 2. If notice could be legally given as the unpaid (last) installment, yet as a condition upon which the same is allowed, it must show the discontinuance of the suits or return of the…
1Opinion of the CourtElandrau, J.
By the Court The father-of William Smith, the Plaintiff below, first owned the land in question and sold it with eighty acres besides to Whitney and Eolsom for the sum of $10,200, part of the money was paid down, and the balance was to be paid in three installments for which three promissory notes were given by Whitney and Eolsom to William Smith, the Plaintiff, which notes were payable, one in six months, one in one year, and one in two years, A mortgage was executed by Whitney & Folsom and their wives on the land in question to said William Smith to secure the said three notes.
After this…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Horton v. MaffittSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Willard v. FinneganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Dickerson v. HayesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Donnelly v. SimontonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Goenen v. SchroederSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.