Ironton Land Co. v. Butchart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant York from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Cant, J., denying a motion for a new trial and also denying a motion for additional findings of fact. The complaint states no cause of action against defendants. The cancellation of the subscription was the consideration for the mortgage, and the subscription having been cancelled there is no failure of consideration.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant York from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Cant, J., denying a motion for a new trial and also denying a motion for additional findings of fact. The complaint states no cause of action against defendants. The cancellation of the subscription was the consideration for the mortgage, and the subscription having been cancelled there is no failure of consideration. In order that the nonperformance of an agreement may constitute failure of consideration of commercial paper, the agreement must not be collaterally or remotely connected with the paper, as the…
1Opinion of the Court
START, c. J.
The defendant Levi D. York, a resident of the state of Ohio, as the assignee of a mortgage for $27,733.22 made by the plaintiff, commenced proceedings to foreclose the mortgage by advertisement. Thereupon the plaintiff commenced this action against York and the defendant Butchart, as sheriff, to restrain such foreclosure, on the ground that the consideration for the mortgage had failed, whereby the plaintiff had sustained damages in a sum exceeding the amount of the mortgage. The defendant York appeared, and in his , answer, after putting in issue a part of the allegations of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Blagen v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Paine v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Cargill v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. PrinceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Day v. GravelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- O'Shea v. North American Hotel Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Branhill Realty Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Johnson v. Wild Rice Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912