Dana v. Farrington
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Plaintiffs in Error: First.- — The statute requires a notice containing certain matters to be published six weeks. Compiled Statutes, page 644. The complaint alleges that such a notice was published. The answer admits that a proper notice was published, but says it was for the 23d instead of the 25th, and was not published six weeks.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Plaintiffs in Error: First.- — The statute requires a notice containing certain matters to be published six weeks. Compiled Statutes, page 644. The complaint alleges that such a notice was published. The answer admits that a proper notice was published, but says it was for the 23d instead of the 25th, and was not published six weeks. The special verdict finds that a notice for the 23d of May was first published, but that the time of sale was changed to the 25th of May, and the notice as changed was first published on the…
1Opinion of the CourtElandrau, J.
By the Court. This action was brought to recover possession of certain real estate in the city of St. Paul, which the Plaintiff's claim to, be entitled to, by virtue of a sale under a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement under the statute. The defence set up in the answer, which we shall alone notice, is, that the sale was' irregular and void, the notice having stated originally that the sale would take place on the 23d of May, 1860, and that the Plaintiffs had changed ittothe 25th of May, 1860, whereby the Defendants were misled, etc. The evidence disclosed that such alteration had been…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Wolff v. WardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Powers v. KueckhoffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Tabet v. GoodmanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1923
- Heath v. HallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Banning v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.