Van Valkenburg Moss & Flaherty v. Buffalo National Bank

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Van Valkenburg Moss & Flaherty v. Buffalo National Bank

226 N.W.2d 918, 303 Minn. 548, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1575

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 7, 1975

DocketNo. 45083

StatusPublished

This text of 226 N.W.2d 918 (Van Valkenburg Moss & Flaherty v. Buffalo National Bank) 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

Van Valkenburg Moss & Flaherty v. Buffalo National Bank, 226 N.W.2d 918, 303 Minn. 548, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1575 (Mich. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the district court. We affirm.

Plaintiff, a Minnesota professional corporation, brought this action as assignee of Warren and Lenotine Erickson. In 1964, the Ericksons, as mortgagors, had entered into a mortgage agreement with defendant as mortgagee. In connection with this mortgage, the Ericksons signed a promissory note for $15,000. Defendant paid $6,549 of the proceeds to one Earl M. Campbell, who had been the only person to deal with defendant in arranging the mortgage. The Ericksons never brought an action in their own name against defendant alleging that the funds had been misapplied.

In 1970, plaintiff obtained an assignment of any cause of action the Ericksons might have against defendant and brought this action alleging that defendant failed to make payment of the proceeds of the promissory note as directed by the Ericksons. Plaintiff, in its brief, has designated its action as one for money had and received. The gist of such an action is that defendant has received money which, in equity and good conscience, should be paid over to plaintiff and under such circumstances that he ought to pay it over. Bosworth v. Wolfe, 146 Wash. 615, 264 P. 413, 56 A. L. R. 1117 (1928). It is a defense to this action that plaintiff has no equitable right to the money. See, Myers v. Hurley Motor Co. 273 U. S. 18, 47 S. Ct. 277, 71 L. ed. 515, 50 A. L. R. 1181 (1927); Houck v. Hubbard Milling Co. 140 Minn. 186, 167 N. W. 1038 (1918).

The trial court found that the Ericksons obtained the land which was subject to the mortgage for precisely the amount agreed upon and that no claims had ever been made against the Ericksons. The trial court concluded that plaintiff, as assignee of the Ericksons, was not entitled to recover the funds from defendant. We have examined the record and have found nothing which would compel us to reach a different conclusion.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the district court. We affirm.

Plaintiff, a Minnesota professional corporation, brought this action as assignee of Warren and Lenotine Erickson. In 1964, the Ericksons, as mortgagors, had entered into a mortgage agreement with defendant as mortgagee. In connection with this mortgage, the Ericksons signed a promissory note for $15,000. Defendant paid $6,549 of the proceeds to one Earl M. Campbell, who had been the only person to deal with defendant in arranging the mortgage. The Ericksons never brought an action in their own name against defendant alleging that the funds had been misapplied.

In 1970, plaintiff obtained an assignment of any cause of action the Ericksons might have against defendant and brought this action alleging that defendant failed to make payment of the proceeds of the promissory note as directed by the Ericksons. Plaintiff, in its brief, has designated its action as one for money had and received. The gist of such an action is that defendant has received money which, in equity and good conscience, should be paid over to plaintiff and under such circumstances that he ought to pay it over. Bosworth v. Wolfe, 146 Wash. 615, 264 P. 413, 56 A. L. R. 1117 (1928). It is a defense to this action that plaintiff has no equitable right to the money. See, Myers v. Hurley Motor Co. 273 U. S. 18, 47 S. Ct. 277, 71 L. ed. 515, 50 A. L. R. 1181 (1927); Houck v. Hubbard Milling Co. 140 Minn. 186, 167 N. W. 1038 (1918).

The trial court found that the Ericksons obtained the land which was subject to the mortgage for precisely the amount agreed upon and that no claims had ever been made against the Ericksons. The trial court concluded that plaintiff, as assignee of the Ericksons, was not entitled to recover the funds from defendant. We have examined the record and have found nothing which would compel us to reach a different conclusion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 N.W.2d 918, 303 Minn. 548, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-valkenburg-moss-flaherty-v-buffalo-national-bank-minn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack