Case Name: Willis A. McDowell vs. C. O. Hillman, (Pioneer Savings & Loan Co., Intervener.)
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1892-06-27
Citations: 50 Minn. 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: Willis A. McDowell vs. C. O. Hillman, (Pioneer Savings & Loan Co., Intervener.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 319–319

Head Matter:
Willis A. McDowell vs. C. O. Hillman, (Pioneer Savings & Loan Co., Intervener.)
Submitted on briefs May 27, 1892.
Decided June 27, 1892.
Appeal by intervener, the Pioneer Savings and Loan Company, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Pond, J., entered February 19, 1892.
On January 25, 1891, F. G. Danielson leased to the defendant, C. 0. Holman, the house known as No. 2109 Twenty-second street, South, in Minneapolis, and Holman agreed to pay $8 per month rent for it. Four months’ rent being unpaid July 18,1891, Danielson assigned the claim to plaintiff, who brought suit upon it in a Justice Court against Holman and obtained judgment. An appeal was taken to the District Court on questions of both law and fact. The Pioneer Savings and Loan Company intervened and filed its complaint, stating that it held a mortgage on the property containing a power of sale on default of payment, and other provisions similar to those in the mortgage mentioned in Pioneer Savings and Loan Co. v. Farn-ham, ante, p. 315. It further stated that it had foreclosed under the power and had bid in the property for the full amount secured by its mortgage; that the time to redeem had not expired; that the mortgagor was insolvent, and the security inadequate; and it prayed that the rents be payed to it, to apply on taxes, insurance, repairs and expenses. The parties stipulated that the statements of the complaint in intervention were true, and the case was submitted for decision. The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the intervener appealed.
G. D. Emery and S. M. Davis, for appellant.
Willis A. McDowell, pro se.

Opinion:
Gileillan, C. J.
This case is disposed of by the decision in Pioneer Savings é Loan Co. v. Farnham, ante, p. 315.
Judgment affirmed.