Minnesota Supreme Court, 1881

O'Mulcahy v. Holley

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 16, 1881 · Berry, Gilfillan

28 Minn. 31; 8 N.W. 906; 1881 Minn. LEXIS 189 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

II. C. Butler and Geo. N. Baxter, for appellant., Jones & Gove, for respondents.

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 1914, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Cole v. Johnson (Minn. 1914)
Hendricks v. Hess (Minn. 1910)
Halleck v. Bresnahen (Wyo. 1883)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.*

The facts found by the court below — and there is no complaint made here of the findings of fact — do not sustain plaintiff’s claim that the intervenors Holley and Brown are estopped from asserting their title to the note and mortgage which are the subject of plaintiff’s action; for although they were silent as to their ownership, when, perhaps, they ought to have given plaintiff notice of it, yet it' is not found that such silence influenced in any manner his conduct, nor that, in consequence of it, he did anything that he would have refrained from doing, had he known of their title.

Plaintiff is not entitled to the protection of the registry laws. He took the assignment of the note and mortgage after the mortgagee, his assignor, had transferred and delivered them to Holley and Brown. The fact that his assignor had not possession of the note and mort*33gage which he assumed to assign, was sufficient to put the plaintiff upon inquiry as to the defect in the assignor’s title. It does not appear that he made any inquiry. Plaintiff was not, therefore, a subsequent purchaser in good faith, within the meaning of the registry law.

Note. A motion for reargument of this ease was denied May 30, 1881. — [Reporter.

The assignor’s covenant in the assignment, that he had good right and lawful authority to sell and assign the note and mortgage, does not establish the fact that plaintiff made any inquiry into the assign- or’s title; nor, if he made such inquiry, that he was not fully informed of the defect in it.

Judgment affirmed.

Berry, J.

I agree to the general conclusions arrived at in this case, but not to the particular ground upon which the question of estoppel is disposed of.

Cornell, J., because of illness, and Mitchell, J., because of having tried the case below, took no part in this decision.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.