Case Name: Otis Ayer vs. George W. Stewart et al.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1869-01
Citations: 14 Minn. 97
Docket Number: 
Parties: Otis Ayer vs. George W. Stewart et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 97–105

Head Matter:
Otis Ayer vs. George W. Stewart et al.
C. executed a first mortgage upon certain lands to P., and a second mortgage upon the same to A., and afterwards quitclaimed the same premises to S. The first mortgage was foreclosed by advertisement, and immediately after the foreclosure sale S., as owner of the premises, demanded and received from the Sheriff who made the sale the surplus money bid over and above the amount of the first mortgage and costs of sale. Nearly eight years after the surplus was paid to S., A., the second mortgagee, brought an action against S. for the money so ree'eived by him, and to declare and enforce a lien thereon as second mortgagee. Held, That the action is in the nature of an action for money had and received, and is barred by lapse of time, upon the principle that the analogy of the law in regard to limitation of actions in such cases should be followed, and in accordance with the doctrine that a court of equity will refuse relief for stale demands where a party has slept upon his rights.
This action was brought in the District Court for Eamsey County by the plaintiff, as holder of a second mortgage, to recover the surplus money paid over to the successor in interest of the mortgagor, upon the foreclosure of the prior mortgage, and to enforce his lien thereon. The cause was tried before a referee, who ordered judgment as demanded in the complaint. The court below set aside the report of the referee, and the plaintiff appeals from the order setting the same aside to this Court. The case is fully stated in the dissenting opinion.
Síiith & Gilman for Appellant.
SwaN & BANGS, AtwateR & FlaNdrau for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Coivrt
Berry, J.
"We are unable to conceive bow tbe plaintiff could have any claim against Stewart for the surplus money arising from the foreclosure of the Piper mortgage, unless it be upon the basis that as this surplus, while in the hands of the sheriff, belonged to the plaintiff, a second mortgagee, (upon the ground stated in the dissenting opinion in this case) the law would imply that Stewart took the same upon a trust tor the use and benefit of the plaintiff. Assuming that a trust of this nature would be implied, the plaintiff's right to the surplus in the hands of Stewart, and as against Stewart, accrued at the moment when Stewart received the money. By the very act of demanding and receiving the money as owner of the mortgaged premises, as he claimed to do,- Stewart denied and repudiated the right of the plaintiff to the money, and ' claimed the same in his own right, and adversely to the plaintiff. Stewart received the surplus March 5th, 1859, and this action was commenced about February 1st, 1867, nearly eight years after the time when the plaintiff's right against Stewart accrued.
Of the foreclosure, the plaintiff was bound to take notice, and there is nothing to show that he was not aware that the surplus was paid over to Stewart immediately after the sale. The plaintiff's cause of action against Stewart is in the nature of an action at law for money had and received, and upon the principle that equity follows the analogy of the 1 aw in regard to limitations of actions, and upon the well established doctrine that, even where there is no analogous statutable bar, a court of equity will refuse relief for stale demands where a party has slept upon his rights, we agree with the learned Judge below, that this action should be held to be barred bj lapse of time. Angell on limitations, Secs. 25, 26; Stafford vs. Richardson, 15 Wend., 306.
Order affirmed.