Melin v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Melin v. Reynolds

19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 52, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 79

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 19, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 N.W. 81 (Melin v. Reynolds) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 52, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melin-v-reynolds-minn-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack