Canfield v. Bodkin

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Canfield v. Bodkin

117 N.W. 498, 105 Minn. 522, 1908 Minn. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 7, 1908

DocketNos. 15,669-(90)

StatusPublished

This text of 117 N.W. 498 (Canfield v. Bodkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canfield v. Bodkin, 117 N.W. 498, 105 Minn. 522, 1908 Minn. LEXIS 558 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is substantially the same as that of Adams v. Overboe, supra,' page 295, 117 N. W. 496, in which the questions involved are considered.

The facts need not be restated. At the time when Adams took the mortgage to himself upon the grain, he also took a mortgage on the same grain, to which his mortgage was declared to be subject, to secure a note for $115.25, [523]*523payable and belonging to one Canfield. This note was a renewal of a note for the same amount, wbieb for some time had been in Adams’ possession for collection for his client, Canfield. The action against the sheriff was brought by Canfield on October 30, 1901, and the sureties on his official bond were made parties defendant by an order of court on September 10, 1904. The right of action had not been barred by the statute of limitations, and the evidence shows affirmatively that the Canfield mortgage was not fraudulent.

What is said in the Adams ease applies equally here, and the order of the trial court is therefore reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case is substantially the same as that of Adams v. Overboe, supra,' page 295, 117 N. W. 496, in which the questions involved are considered.

The facts need not be restated. At the time when Adams took the mortgage to himself upon the grain, he also took a mortgage on the same grain, to which his mortgage was declared to be subject, to secure a note for $115.25, [523]*523payable and belonging to one Canfield. This note was a renewal of a note for the same amount, wbieb for some time had been in Adams’ possession for collection for his client, Canfield. The action against the sheriff was brought by Canfield on October 30, 1901, and the sureties on his official bond were made parties defendant by an order of court on September 10, 1904. The right of action had not been barred by the statute of limitations, and the evidence shows affirmatively that the Canfield mortgage was not fraudulent.

What is said in the Adams ease applies equally here, and the order of the trial court is therefore reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.W. 498, 105 Minn. 522, 1908 Minn. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canfield-v-bodkin-minn-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack