Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-03-14
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS OF CASES ARGUED 1T
THE OCTOBER TERN.

i
THE OCTOBER TERN.
The Synabi and Opinions of tho Supreme
Court Of Minnesota, a. Filed With the
Clerk Yesterday.
Cdrthy And,e,O j. Preston, administrator Of
tho estate Of John C. Racquet, deceased, Emma
s Q. Racquet, John ~. Racquet Andse,o J. Pres
ton, John Wann, Patrick Nash, and the hin
fesofa Savings Association, Appellant
SYLLABUS.
Ii in consequence of the improper manner |
IN which q sale is conducted upon the foreclos- !
ure of mortgage by advertisement the price !
at which the property is bid in is grossly made
quate and grossly below what it ought to bring, |
the sale is grossly unfair. And if the mort
gagor, or those interested in attacking such a
sale. have not assented to it or by laches disen-
titled themselves to relief, court of equity !
is justified in setting aside the sale
at least in . case which the property has been
bid in by the holders of the mortgage and is
held by them or by persons who have no greater
rights or equities. The mortgage foreclosed
covered lands described az three parcels. The
soAO " VAA0 AAbt 6uu o0COuu palCtlh Wd6 grossly
unfair and the price received for then grossly
inadequate, because they were improperly sold
and not as one parcel. The sale of
the third parcel was not in itself irregular or
unfair. He'd, however that upon the facts of
the case as detailed in the opinion the entire
sale was properly set aside.
OPINION.
The lands covered by the mortgage, from the
plaintiff to Nash, are described therein as three
parcels. The parcel thirdly described did not
adjoin the other two. As to the latter, the
finding of the court is, .That the parcels of
land IN said mortgage, first and secondly de-
scribed, constitute one tract of land in fact.
The two parcels adjoin each other, the second
parcel lying Immediately in the rear of the
first. The first described parcel had frontage
of twenty feet on Third street (St PauD and
ran back fifty feet. The parcel secondly de-
scribed. Immediately in its rear, and Of the
same width. The two parcels form strip
twenty feet in width by eighty feet in depth
There was no mark of separation between the
nsed as one tract, by the erection of a costly
stone building, extending the whole length,
and covering the entire width of the whole
property. The building was used as store,
and there was no access to the rear per-s
ton, except through the rear portion.
1t IS further found that the assignees and hold
ers OF the mortgage proceeding to foreclose by
advertisements caused the property firstly and
secondly described to be nut up for sale and to
be sold separately, and not as one parcel: that
the two would bring much more If sold as one
parcel than if sold as two; that the second de-
from the first; that the two parcels.
with the building and improvements
theron, were worth, at the time Of the sale
vi, OOO, and the third parcel 81, 500; that the
value of the first and second parcels separated
cannot g, De estimated with any accuracy; that at
the foreclosure sale the first parcel was honoht
in by the holders of the mortgage for the pross.
~ inadequate sum Of $4, 600, the second parcel
for 5000 and the third for $3.50. The statute
lden: st. On, 3D. 8. 81 enacts that s'if the mort
gagged premises consist OF separate and distinct
FARMS or tracts they shall be sold
sePara1ely. AS Is correctly found by
the court below, the first and second
described parcels did not consist Of separate
t q out together they formed one tract and
this was potent fact, as to which there was
no dlnerence OF opinion. Notwithstanding the
TWO parcels were separately described in the
mortgage me statute DID not require that they
snoula De separately Sold Neither did the
statute perscribe that they should be sold to-
ge1nel. but upon general principles it is
clearly the duty OF the holders of the mortgage
TO sell fairly and with q reasonable regard for
the interests of all parties concerned. And as
respects case like the present, in which the
mortgaged property was bid in by the assignees
ana holders OF the mortgage this duty is clear
recognized by Section 10, chap. 81, Gen. st.
which provides that the mortgage, his
ass1gns, or nls or their legal representatives
may fairly and in good faith purchase the
premises SO advertised or any part thereof
Sold. sale is sale conducted with fair
ness as respects the rights and interests Of the
parties affected by it.
Inc holders OF the mortgage are interested
that the property shall bring enough to satisfy
enear clam lam; those claiming under the mort
are interested that there be q surplus over and
above tne mortgage debt, large enough to sat
lsfy their claims; while the mortgagor is inter-
ested that the surplus may be as large as pos
sible. AS respects the mortgagor, then, any
the property from bringing price as high as it
would bring if otherwise conducted, is unfair.
This proposition is, of course, to be taken in
reasonable sense. If, in consequence of the
improper manner in which the sale ia con-
Quoted, the price at which the property is bid
in is grossly inadequate and grossly below what
| it ought to bring, the sale may be said to be
grossly unfair. And if the mortgagor or those
interested in attacking such a sale have NOT MS
sented to it, or by laches disentitled themselves
to relief, court of equity is justified
in setting aside the sale at least in case in
which the property has been bid in by the hold
ers OF the mortgage and is held by them
OF by persons who have no greater rights
OF equities. The manner in which the sale Of
the hrst and second parcels was conducted was
plainly calculated to prevent those parcels from
bringing q fair price, price as high as thew
might reasonably be expected to have brought
If sold together. The result (Which may be
fairly attributed to the manner of conducting
the sale) was that the property brought grossly
inadequate price. The sale was grossly unfair.
The property was also bid in by the assignees