Stromberg v. Lindberg
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1926, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ulrich v. Security Investment Co. (Haw. 1939)
- Watson v. Koochiching Realty Co. (Minn. 1926)
- Great Northern State Bank v. Ryan (8th Cir. 1923)
- Croze v. St. Mary's Canal Mineral Land Co. (Mich. 1908)
- Johnston & Son v. Robuck (Iowa 1898)
- First National Bank v. Wilbur (Colo. 1891)
- Loeb & Hirsch v. Milner (Neb. 1887)
- Mathews v. Smith & Crittenden (Neb. 1882)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A chattel mortgage vests in the mortgagee the legal title, subject to be defeated by performance of the condition in the mortgage, a right or equity of redemption remaining in the mortgagor. Formerly, at law, the mortgagee’s title became absolute upon a default; but courts of law now accept the equitable rule, fhat the right of redemption continues until it is barred or foreclosed, in the manner provided by law or in the mortgage. See also Gen. St. c. 39, §§ 5-9. Where the mortgagee forecloses under the power of sale in the mortgage, he stands, with respect to the mortgagor’s rights in the property, in the position of a trustee, and is held to the exercise of good faith and proper care and diligence to avoid any sacrifice of those rights, not necessary to the reasonable enforcement of his own. Although the mortgage cover much more property than is necessary to his security, he may, under his mortgage, for his security, take possession of the whole; but where, without prejudice or great m.convenience to himself, he can satisfy his debt by a sale of
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.