Durfee v. Pavitt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was commenced in the district court for Hen-nepin county, and was tried before a referee whose findings of facts and decision thereon are as follows : 1. “ That on the 22d day of September, 1857, Samuel IT.
Read the full summary
This action was commenced in the district court for Hen-nepin county, and was tried before a referee whose findings of facts and decision thereon are as follows : 1. “ That on the 22d day of September, 1857, Samuel IT. Charlton was the owner in fee of lot No. 3, in block No. 54, in the town of Minneapolis, and that on that day said Charlton and wife executed and' delivered a mortgage on said lot to Lucius Atwater, to secure the payment of $648 to said Atwater, which mortgage was duly recorded. 2. That said Atwater duly foreclosed said mortgage by advertisement, under power of sale contained…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McMillan, J.
The principal points of inquiry in this case are :
1. Whether the deed from Atwater to Pavitt was presumptively fraudulent, and whether for want of evidence on the part of Pavitt disproving a fraudulent intent, a trust resulted to the creditor of Hill, under our statute.
2. Whether the deed was fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff, as creditor of Hill, for actual fraud in the conveyance. Some other incidental questions will be considered as we proceed in the case.
It is a well settled doctrine under the statute of frauds, that where one man buys land and pays for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boyd v. M'LeanNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
- Jackson v. FrierNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Jackson v. MorseNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johnson v. KrassinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871