Mosness v. Lacy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Mosness v. Lacy

76 N.W. 34, 73 Minn. 283, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 801

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 12, 1898·No. Nos. 11,154-(243)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BUCK, J.

This is an action to set aside the record of a foreclosure sale by advertisement, and the question involved is the validity of the postponement of the sale from the time fixed in the original advertisement, viz., August 10, 1895, to August 24, 1895.

The record does not show that the sale was not duly postponed. The sale itself was made by the sheriff in the manner provided by [285] statute, and the certificate thereof contained the requirements of the law. As this certificate, under G-. S. 1894, § 6054, is prima facie evidence that all the requirements of law in that behalf were duly complied with, the postponement and sale must be deemed valid.

Judgment affirmed.

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

BUCK, J.

This is an action to set aside the record of a foreclosure sale by advertisement, and the question involved is the validity of the postponement of the sale from the time fixed in the original advertisement, viz., August 10, 1895, to August 24, 1895.

The record does not show that the sale was not duly postponed. The sale itself was made by the sheriff in the manner provided by [285] statute, and the certificate thereof contained the requirements of the law. As this certificate, under G-. S. 1894, § 6054, is prima facie evidence that all the requirements of law in that behalf were duly complied with, the postponement and sale must be deemed valid.

Judgment affirmed.

Mosness v. Lacy, 76 N.W. 34, 73 Minn. 283, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 801 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

76 N.W. 34 (Mosness v. Lacy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related