Case ID: minn_114/html/0525-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF MANKATO v. JAMES H. FUNK and Others.
    
    May 19, 1911.
    Nos. 17,037 — (90).
    Case followed.
    Action in the district court for Blue Earth county to foreclose a real estate mortgage given by defendant Funk. Defendant Azella F. Smith answered separately and repeated substantially the allegations of her complaint in the case of Smith v. Funk, supra, page 367. Defendants C. O. Dailey and C. J. Laurisch also answered and prayed that their mortgage for $300 be decreed to be a lien on the premises and that it be foreclosed by a sale of the premises. The case was tried before Quinn, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff, decreed the mortgage deed of Dailey and Laurisch to be void, but ordered that they have judgment against defendant Smith for the sum of $300. From the judgment decreeing a foreclosure sale of the premises involved and in favor of plaintiff and defendants C. O. Dailey and C. J. Laurisch, defendant Azella F. Smith appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Miles Porter, Thomas Hughes, and D. J. Severance, for appellant.
    S. B. Wilson, A. R. Pfau, C. J. Laurisch and C. O. Dailey, for respondents.
    
      
      Reported in 131 N. W. 378.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an action to foreclose the mortgage for $2,500 given by William H. Funk to C. L. Oleson, involved in the case of Smith v. Funk, supra, page 367, 131 N. W. 377. The two cases were tried together, and judgment of foreclosure was rendered in this case, from which defendant Azella F. Smith appealed.

The decision in the other case disposes of appellant’s contentions in this case. As she has no title to the mortgaged property, she is not interested in the validity of the mortgage. It is proper to say, however, that there is no question of the validity of this mortgage in any event: Even if appellant owned the premises, on her own theory she knew of and authorized the giving of the mortgage, and took the benefits. Her claim that it is tainted by usury finds no support in the evidence.

The trial court gave judgment in favor of defendants Laurisch and Dailey against appellant on a note she had given them for legal services, secured by a mortgage on the premises. The evidence supports the conclusion that this note was given for a valuable consideration, and was valid.

Judgment affirmed.