Case ID: minn_53/html/0257-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilfillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilbur S. Reynolds vs. Sydney H. Curtiss et al.
    
    Submitted on briefs April 24, 1893.
    Decided May 11, 1893.
    Findings Sustained by the Evidence.
    Evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding of fact.
    Appeal by plaintiff, Wilbur S. Reynolds, from an order of the District Court of Otter Tail County, L. L. Baxter, J., made September 29, 1891, denying his motion for a new trial.
    Plaintiff owned lots six (6) and seven (7) in block five (5) in the Village of Henning, and on October 23, 1886, mortgaged them for $400 to the defendants, Sydney H. Curtiss and Adelbert G-. Law-a’ence. This mortgage was foreclosed September 15, 1888, under .-a power therein, and the lots were sold by the sheriff to the mortgagees for $465.82. Plaintiff claims that on September 10, 1889, 'defendants orally agreed with him that he should have an extension of time in which to redeem from the sale, and that they would take the redemption money in installments from time to time convenient for plaintiff; that relying on such agreement, he allowed the year to expire in which he could redeem, remained in the possession, and on October 15, 1889, paid defendants $100. They 'denied the agreement, and claimed the $100 was paid as rent. The trial court found for defendants, and ordered judgment that plaintiff take nothing and pay the costs. He moved for a new trial, and, being denied, appeals. The discussion in this court, was upon the evidence, whether or no,t it was sufficient to support the •finding that there was no agreement extending the time for redemption.
    
      Chas. L. Lewis, for appellant.
    
      W. JP. Bailey and Taylor, Calhoun & Rhodes, for respondents.
   Gilfillan, C. J.

The court below having found against the .allegation that there was an agreement extending the time for redemption, there is no basis for any of the questions of law raised; .and the evidence was such as to justify the' court’s finding of fact.

Order affirmed.

Vanderburgh, J., took no part in this decision,

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 543.)