Wolf v. Banning & Bucknell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of tbe District Court of Ramsey County. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by husband and wife upon the separate estate of the wife. The Defendants answered separately, — the wife by her next friend, one Oliver.
Read the full summary
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of tbe District Court of Ramsey County. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by husband and wife upon the separate estate of the wife. The Defendants answered separately, — the wife by her next friend, one Oliver. The Plaintiffs moved to strike out portions of the answer of the Defendant Henry C. Wolf, upon the ground of irrelevancy, &c., and also the answer of the Defendant Maria A. Wolf, because her next friend, Oliver, was not a party to the action, and her husband was a Defendant therein. The motion was granted, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
— Flandrau, J.
—The action being an equitable one, the order is clearly appealable under section 74 of page 470 of the Revised Statutes.
The action being to foreclose a mortgage made by husband and wife on the separate estate of the wife, the husband was of course a necessary and proper party defendant, both from his interest in the land as husband, and big personal liability on the note to which the mortgage was collateral, for any deficiency that might remain after the sale.
When husband and wife are joined as defendants, it is his duty to appear and answer for himself and wife…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Leavitt v. CrugerNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
3Cited by9 opinions
- Noonan v. City of StillwaterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Stimson v. StimsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- City of Hugo v. NanceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Park v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- Atkins v. LittleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.