Bennett v. Brundage
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OB' GOODHUE COUNTY. S. & J. Giles, the grantors of the Defendant, held a note and mortgage upon this property, executed April 8th, 1857, by the Plaintiff Bennett and wife. The note not being paid at maturity, the mortgagees foreclosed by advertisement, bid in the property, and after the time of redemption had expired, conveyed the premises to the Defendant, Brundage, who (the premises being vacant) took possession.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OB' GOODHUE COUNTY. S. & J. Giles, the grantors of the Defendant, held a note and mortgage upon this property, executed April 8th, 1857, by the Plaintiff Bennett and wife. The note not being paid at maturity, the mortgagees foreclosed by advertisement, bid in the property, and after the time of redemption had expired, conveyed the premises to the Defendant, Brundage, who (the premises being vacant) took possession. The advertisement was dated December 24th, 1858, and gave notice that the sale would take place on the 5th day of February,1859,at o’clock, 10a.m.,at…
1Opinion of the Court
*434 By the Court.
Emmktt, C. J.
The only question involved in this record which the parties have submitted for our decision, is whether a mortgage sale under a power, advertised to take place on a particular day, can, prior to the day named in the notice, legally be postponed.
In ordinary cases it is 'to the interest of the mortgagor to have the sale deferred as long as possible, and it was in view of this fact doubtless that the statute is so liberal as to place the postponement almost entirely at the discretion of the mortgagee or his assigns. Sec. 7, Com. Stot., 644, authorizes the sale to be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wolff v. WardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Sanborn v. School District No. 10Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1866