Oertel v. Pierce
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal, reported in 112 Minn. 397, 128 N. W. ■671, the complaint was amended to allege that the summons in the •action brought to secure a deficiency judgment had never in fact been served upon plaintiff; that the dealings between plaintiff and ■defendant with reference to the foreclosure operated to set the foreclosure aside, and by reason thereof defendant’s right in and to the mortgaged premises was that of a mortgagee in possession.
Read the full summary
After the former appeal, reported in 112 Minn. 397, 128 N. W. ■671, the complaint was amended to allege that the summons in the •action brought to secure a deficiency judgment had never in fact been served upon plaintiff; that the dealings between plaintiff and ■defendant with reference to the foreclosure operated to set the foreclosure aside, and by reason thereof defendant’s right in and to the mortgaged premises was that of a mortgagee in possession. The -answer to the amended complaint specifically denied the payment of '$422.89; that the summons referred to had never been served on…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Action for an accounting of the rents and profits of certain property ¡alleged to belong to plaintiff, and for other relief. After a trial before the court without a jury, findings of fact and conclusions of law were duly made, and judgment ordered for plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint. Defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The findings of the court disclose the following facts:
Plaintiff was, on June 20, 1889, the owner in fee simple of the real estate and premises involved in the action. On that day, her haisband joining therein, plaintiff executed and delivered to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Williams v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Tingue v. PatchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Vaule v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Osman v. WistedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Dodge v. BrewerMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Sommers v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Eyre v. City of FaribaultSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Garey v. Morley BrothersMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- In Re Estate of MollanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.