Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-09-22
TIE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.
Before Judge Nelson.]
G. W. Root ct al. VS.. n B. HARDWOOD ct eal.
Continued until to-day.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
John Steele, respondent, vs.. John w. Bond
and Joanna Bond, appellants.
Syllabus-In proceeding under the statute
relating to forcible entrees and unlawful de.
tanners, brought in the municipal court of
the city of st. Paul by the plaintiff, as lessor,
against the defendants as lessee, in an identure
of lease, for the restitution of the premises
alleged to be unlawfully withheld after the ex-
piration of the lease, the defendants pleaded
the execution by them to the plaintiff of q
mortgage on the premises to secure loan of
money, and that default of money having
been made, the mortgage premises were sold
on foreclosure by advertisement to the plain
tit for the full amount due, and that sherif's
certificate of sale was executed to him and
recorded, that while the period of re-
demption was current, it was agreed
between the parties that the amount for which
the property was sold should constitute new
loan at 10 per cent. interest from the date of
the sale, to run beyond the period of redemp-
ton, and that the time of repemption which
would otherwise run, should not be opera
tive, and that the original mortgage should
stand as security for the new contract, that
payments were made under the new contract
on the mortgage debt and received by the
piration of such period of redemption; that
the lease which received rents and contained
the usual covenants for renting and restitu-
ton, and provision comforting upon the les
sees the privilege of purchasing the premises
before the expiration of the term for an amount
stated, being the balance due on the mortgage
debt, was made at the request of the lessor as
additional security for the debt remaining
unpaid, and that the rents received thereon
were agreed to be. and were, actually paid and
received as part payment on the mortgage
debt, and that the lessees never in fact entered
under the lease, but had been continuously in
possession of the premises for twenty-six years
IS owners, when it was made.
Held, That the facts 80 pleaded control the
legal effect of the lease, and show the real le-
latien of the parties to be that of mortgager
and mortgage.
Held further, that the statutes relating to
forcible entrees and unlawful detainers SO far
as it affords a remedy for landlords against
tenants who unlawfully detain the premises
after default in the payment of rent, or the
expiration of the term, applies only to the
conditional relation of landlord and tenant,
and was intended as substitute for the action
of ejectment, nor to afford means of enforcing
agreements to surrender possession of real
estate where that relation does not exist, or
has not existed as the formation of the lessees
possession.
Held further, That the matters pleaded in
the answer involved in effect a question Of
title to the lots, and such matters having been
denied, the court below should have heard
the evidence offered to prove them far enough
to ascertain that the title to real estate was in
volved upon the evidence as well as upon the
pleadings, and thereupon granted the defend
ants application to certify the case to the dis.
trict court according to the established rule
Of practice in such cases, and it was error to
refuse SO to do.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
,5 CLARK, j. aeI