Harper v. East Side Syndicate

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Harper v. East Side Syndicate

42 N.W. 86, 40 Minn. 381, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 100

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 23, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 N.W. 86 (Harper v. East Side Syndicate) 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

Harper v. East Side Syndicate, 42 N.W. 86, 40 Minn. 381, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 100 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

This action is brought to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale o'f lands against the purchasers. The defence is that the plaintiff is unable to give a good title to the land agreed to be conveyed. He claims title under the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, and the latter is admitted to have been the owner; but prior to the date of its conveyance to the plaintiff, the corporation had executed two several mortgages to secure its bonds to a large amount, running to J. Edgar Thompson [382]*382and William G. Moorhead, trustees, covering this and other lands. A suit in equity had been instituted in ike United States circuit court, in which George Philler and Stephen A. Caldwell were plaintiffs, and the'railroad company was sole defendant, to foreclose the mortgage first executed, in which a judgment of foreclosure was entered on March 8, 1877. On March 10th following, the company conveyed the land in question to A. E. Kiefer and Adam Heck, and on the same day Philler and Caldwell also executed to them an instrument releasing the same from the mortgage, and thereafter Kiefer and Heck conveyed to plaintiff. Upon May 1, 1877, the premises were sold in pursuance of the judgment to one Eh awn. The judgment contained a recital that Philler and Caldwell had been appointed trustees in place of Thompson and Moorhead, and this the court.finds to be all the evidence there is that Philler and Caldwell succeeded to the title of Thompson and Moorhead, as trustees. And the second mortgage does not appear to have been foreclosed, satisfied, or barred. Thompson and Moorhead, not being parties to the suit, are not bound by the recitals in the judgment. The plaintiffs are not, therefore, shown to have a good or clear title to the premises, and a court of equity will not compel the purchaser to accept it, and complete the contract.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Vanderburgh, J.

This action is brought to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale o'f lands against the purchasers. The defence is that the plaintiff is unable to give a good title to the land agreed to be conveyed. He claims title under the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, and the latter is admitted to have been the owner; but prior to the date of its conveyance to the plaintiff, the corporation had executed two several mortgages to secure its bonds to a large amount, running to J. Edgar Thompson [382]*382and William G. Moorhead, trustees, covering this and other lands. A suit in equity had been instituted in ike United States circuit court, in which George Philler and Stephen A. Caldwell were plaintiffs, and the'railroad company was sole defendant, to foreclose the mortgage first executed, in which a judgment of foreclosure was entered on March 8, 1877. On March 10th following, the company conveyed the land in question to A. E. Kiefer and Adam Heck, and on the same day Philler and Caldwell also executed to them an instrument releasing the same from the mortgage, and thereafter Kiefer and Heck conveyed to plaintiff. Upon May 1, 1877, the premises were sold in pursuance of the judgment to one Eh awn. The judgment contained a recital that Philler and Caldwell had been appointed trustees in place of Thompson and Moorhead, and this the court.finds to be all the evidence there is that Philler and Caldwell succeeded to the title of Thompson and Moorhead, as trustees. And the second mortgage does not appear to have been foreclosed, satisfied, or barred. Thompson and Moorhead, not being parties to the suit, are not bound by the recitals in the judgment. The plaintiffs are not, therefore, shown to have a good or clear title to the premises, and a court of equity will not compel the purchaser to accept it, and complete the contract.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.W. 86, 40 Minn. 381, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-east-side-syndicate-minn-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack