Williams v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court ior Wabasha county, where the action was tried before Mitchell, J., who found the facts, in substance, as follows: On November 3, 1863, the plaintiffs, being husband and wife, executed to the defendant Stewart a mortgage of certain real estate in Wabasha county, described in the complaint, •and owned in fee by the plaintiff George H. Williams.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court ior Wabasha county, where the action was tried before Mitchell, J., who found the facts, in substance, as follows: On November 3, 1863, the plaintiffs, being husband and wife, executed to the defendant Stewart a mortgage of certain real estate in Wabasha county, described in the complaint, •and owned in fee by the plaintiff George H. Williams. On ■October 20, 1869, the plaintiff George H. executed to the defendant Stewart a second mortgage of the same real estate, in which his wife did not join. Default having been made in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Gtlfillan, G. J.
It is impossible to sustain the theory upon which the court below rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, to wit, that the oral agreement between Mrs. Williams and Stewart amounted, in substance, merely to an *519extension of the time for redemption. Had the agreement, if executed, brought about the same result or condition of things as a redemption, though, perhaps, in a different way, the court might, to prevent a failure in the intention of the parties, treat it as one extending the time to redeem. But it would have brought about a very different result. A redemption would…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schmeling v. KrieselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- McClintock v. LaingMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by28 opinions
- Klein v. MarkarianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Oertel v. PierceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Tingue v. PatchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Huntley v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Rahm v. CummingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.