Brisbin v. Newhall
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTT. The following is a statement of tbe facts. That on tbe twenty-sixth day of February, 1868, tbe Defendant Kingsley recovered a judgment against tbe Plaintiff Newhallfor $34,71 damages and $1,35 costs, and on tbe fifth of March, 1858, another judgment for $89,63 damages and $1,50 costs, both before a Justice of tbe Peac'e of "Washington ■ County.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTT. The following is a statement of tbe facts. That on tbe twenty-sixth day of February, 1868, tbe Defendant Kingsley recovered a judgment against tbe Plaintiff Newhallfor $34,71 damages and $1,35 costs, and on tbe fifth of March, 1858, another judgment for $89,63 damages and $1,50 costs, both before a Justice of tbe Peac'e of "Washington ■ County. That on tbe second day of March, 1858, Jonas Néwhall obtained in tbe District Court of Washington County, judg-meat for $1,218,50 and a decree of foreclosure against said , Kingsley and others, of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Cowrt.
Emmett, C. J.
The assignee of a judgment takes subject to all equities existing at the time, between the judgment debtor and the assignor. Brisbin therefore, occupies the same position towards Newhall, so far as the object of this action is concerned, as did Kingsley at the time of the assignment, and this too, whether he had notice of the judgment which Newhall holds against Kingsley or not. We think however that he could not well claim to be an innocent purchaser of Kingsley’s judgments. It appears by the record that he knew of Newhall’s judgment, and that Newhall and Kingsley…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. v. HolzNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Way v. ColyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Irvine v. Lawrence Myers & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1861