Lowell v. North & Carll
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE DAKOTA COUNTY. Points and authorities on behalf of Appellant. Fvrst. — The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE DAKOTA COUNTY. Points and authorities on behalf of Appellant. Fvrst. — The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. I. This is not an action upon a promissory note simply to recover the amount of the same, to be ascertained and computed by the terms of the note alone, but it is a special action — sui generis — seeking to recover a personal judgment against the Defendant as maker and mortgagor, for an assumed “ balancé remaining unsatisfied, as it is alleged upon his note and mortgage, and I take the ground that the complaint…
1Opinion of the CourtAtwater, J.
By the Court The Plaintiffs below, North & Carll, bring their action to recover the sum of $633 77-100, claimed to be due from the defendant upon a promissory note. The complaint sets forth the making and delivery of the note by the Defendant, &c., and also the execution and delivery by the Defendant of a mortgage to secure the same, upon certain lots in the town of Wilton, Waseca County; that default had occurred in the condition of said mortgage, and the same had been foreclosed and the property sold for $300, which (with other payments) had been endorsed upon the note, leaving a balance…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Scott v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Gerdin v. Princeton State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Sullivan v. Federal Farm Mortgage Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Hull v. PaceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Atkinson v. DuffySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870