Coles v. Yorks
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of tbe district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, -refusing a new trial. The addition to this mortgage, offered to be shown, was an immaterial alteration and could not affect the conveyance already made. Van Horn v. Clark, 11 Iowa, 465; Kendall v. Kendall, 12 Allen, 92.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
This is an action of ejectment. The plaintiff builds his title upon a mortgage purporting to have been executed by the defendants, who are husband and wife, on July 24, 1873. It was foreclosed by advertisement, the mortgaged premises being struck off to one Charles, by whom they were quitclaimed to the plaintiff. The mortgage contains the usual power authorizing a sale at public auction, and, among other things, authorizing the mortgagee and his. successors in interest, “out of the moneys arising from such sale, to retain the principal and interest” of the mortgage debt, “together with all…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- White v. JohnsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bacon v. HookerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Tomlinson v. Kandiyohi County BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Coles v. YorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- McHardy v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Coles v. County of WashingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.