Melin v. Reynolds

19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 52, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 79
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 19, 1884·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Berry, J.1

' “One-half of all the crop growing” on certain described lands means one undivided half of such crop, and, as a description (in a chattel mortgage) of the property mortgaged, is sufficiently definite. The plaintiff, as mortgagee, after condition broken, of an un[53]*53divided half of the crop, was a tenant in common of the whole with the owner of the other half, and therefore entitled to the possession of the whole, or of any part of it, as against mere strangers like defendants, not appearing to have any right or interest in or to any part of such crop. To them it is of no consequence who owns the other undivided half, or whether the mortgage was made in good faith or not. Miller v. Darling, 22 Minn. 303.

The defendants’ objections to the complaint, and the demurrer in support of which they were interposed, were clearly frivolous, and on that ground the demurrer was properly stricken out.

Order affirmed.

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

Melin v. Reynolds, 19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 52, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 79 (Mich. 1884).

19 N.W. 81 (Melin v. Reynolds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First National Bank of Herman v. Cargill Elevator Co.
192 N.W. 111 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1923)
Hagen v. Dwyer
162 N.W. 699 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1917)
Riddle v. Dow
32 L.R.A. 811 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)