The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-30


Judge Bazille yesterday filed an opinion
In the district court in the matter of the
estate OF Annice g. Barteau, deceased,
that contains al number of novel points
and incidentally sustains the claims Of
~ D. Williams, James Linsey, John Chea-
SICK, Dunoit Simafd John B. Simard, Ca
mile Charest, Andrew p Heintz and
Nlcholas Lehnen to certain lots in Mil
ton addition to St.5Paul.
cn 1t appears that in the sS0s Annicei G.
Bafteau was the aowner of a forty-acre
tract, afterwards plated as Milton addi-
ton, and comprising the property bounded
by, University and st. Anthony avenues,
Milton and Victoria streets This was
covered with a blanket mortgage, given
to- the Harmon heirs, with the right re-
served to release separate lots after plat
ting.
In 1885, while Mrs. Barteau was absent
IN Europe, the property was sold by her
husband. William S. Barteau, and by an
agent, acting as attorney in fact for Mrs.
Barteau. 1t is claimed that some of the
purchasers were induced to buy a lot
which had been properly released from
the mortgage. After the examination of
the abstract, which. was found correct,
they were induced to purchase other lots
and Informed that, inasmuch as the first
title had been found correct it would be
waste of money to pay for an examina-
tion of the other titles. The other lots
had not been released The purchasers
paid for grading, sewers and sidewalks
and some of them erected houses on. the
lots.
In 1896, eleven years later, the blanket
mortgage was foreclosed by the Harmon
heirs, which was the first notice that the
purchasers had of the existence Of the
mortgage. 4a.a.stTaer
All of the holders of the ten lots aban-.
doned the holdings, but afterwards Mrs
Barteau, who had securedsa divorce, died.
leaving her estate to Hiram F. Stevens
and others. When the estate came up for
= probate the purchasers of the Milton ad-
dition lots made a claim in the probate
court, to which the executor objected, be-
cause he claimed the. filings We're under
an alleged breach of covenant.
The points involved were:I adf
Ffrst-Can theseassignees of the original
covenantee maintain an action for breach
Of covenant in. theldeed?
Second-In- CASE such action can be
maintained, does interest run under the
facts in this casesfrom the date of the
deed, or In case of an eviction under the
foreclosure of the; mortgage, from the
date of the expiration of the period Of
redemption? :T9lf~o1s:;s;t =,
.!Third-Are rights, acquired by purchase
subject to the mortgage which constr
y,tutes the breach Of covenant, aeestopped.
the purchaser also receiving an assign
ment of any and all claims acquired
through breach ofecovenant?
In regard to the first claim, the court
holds that it is not we'll taken, overrul-
ing the counsel for the executor, who
held that there was ano authority In law
for maintaining such. an action.
The court says that section 5156, Of TIE
General Laws ofs1Ss4, provides that every
action shall be prosecuted in the name of
the real party inninterest, and that all
though this rule is found only in statutes
referring to the district courts, it applies
as well to probate courts.
The second and third claims are also
denied.