Dorr v. Steichen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The plaintiff bought of Peter Brauch., one of the defendants, one hundred and sixty acres of land, received a deed therefor, and executed notes and a mortgage on the premises to secure the unpaid portion of the purchase money. Brauch transferred the notes and mortgages to the defendant Steichen, who commenced foreclosure proceedings by advertisement, thereon.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff bought of Peter Brauch., one of the defendants, one hundred and sixty acres of land, received a deed therefor, and executed notes and a mortgage on the premises to secure the unpaid portion of the purchase money. Brauch transferred the notes and mortgages to the defendant Steichen, who commenced foreclosure proceedings by advertisement, thereon. The plaintiff claiming that there was a breach of the covenants in said deed by reason of a want of title in the grantor to forty acres of land described therein, and that the defendant Steichen was not a bona fide holder of said notes…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Ripley, Ch. J.
The defendants contend that the court below erred in not granting their motion for judgment on the pleadings and stipulations bn file. _
Under these they say, the whole cause is brought down to the single question; has there been, as plaintiff claims, a breach of the covenants of seizin and good right to convey in the deed from Brauch to Dorr of the railroad forty, so called.
This claim they say, tñeir answer avoids by alleging that this railroad forty was inserted in the deed by mistake. This allegation they contend, is a counter-claim requiring a reply. Whether it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bovee v. HellandMontana Supreme Court · 1916
- McCabe v. CanerMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Macy v. SundermanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1910