Hamel v. Corbin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Belden, J., denying his motion for a new trial after the court had ordered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant insists that G. S. 1894, § 6033, prescribing what the notice of foreclosure shall contain is purely remedial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Belden, J., denying his motion for a new trial after the court had ordered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant insists that G. S. 1894, § 6033, prescribing what the notice of foreclosure shall contain is purely remedial. That it is not intended to prescribe or bound the contract powers or rights of parties to mortgages (that is, to make a contract in advance for them), but is intended solely to prescribe a remedy, or a mode for the enforcement of the rights upon which the parties have themselves agreed. When the…
1DissentCanty, J.
I cannot concur in the foregoing opinion so far as it holds that the mortgagee is entitled to retain the amount of the taxes paid by him. These taxes were paid before the commencement of the foreclosure proceedings, and it was not stated in the notice of foreclosure sale that any such taxes had ever been paid, or the amount thereof. Section 6033, G. S. 1894, provides:
“Every notice [of sale on mortgage foreclosure] shall specify— * * * Third, the amount claimed to be due thereon, and taxes, if any, paid by the mortgagee at the date of the notice.”
It is unnecessary to cite decisions holding…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gorham v. National Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Johnson v. Northwestern Loan & Building Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- James v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Kirkpatrick v. LewisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Brown v. Scandia Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895