Austin v. Barnum
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, George F. Barnum, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, Stearns, J., made October 14, 1891, denying his motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, George F. Barnum, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, Stearns, J., made October 14, 1891, denying his motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Z. H. Austin, on November 10,1890, agreed to purchase of defendant eighty acres of land in Carlton county, and pay therefor $3,200. Of this sum plaintiff that day paid $320, upon the stipulation between them that -it should be returned if defendant should not, within nineteen days thereafter, tender and offer to convey to plaintiff a good and perfect title to the land. If plaintiff failed to perform on his part,…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Practically, this case was disposed of by Carson v. Cochran, ante, p. 67, (53 N. W. Kep. 1130,) wherein it was held that a partial payment or an acknowledgment of the debt which would prevent the statute of limitations from running against it would also prevent the statute from running against the remedy on the security. The contract of sale between these parties bore date November 10, 1890, while the mortgage involved was executed and delivered on February 10, 1874, and was recorded about two months later. The abstract of title furnished by appellant vendor omitted to show when the debt…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Townshend v. GoodfellowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Ramsey County v. StrykerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by11 opinions
- Howe v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Campbell v. HarshSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Miller v. SnedekerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Hubachek v. Maxbass Security BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.