Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

Walter v. Hanson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 23, 1885 · Dickinson

33 Minn. 474; 24 N.W. 186; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 117 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Clapp, Woodward & Cowie, for appellants., M. B. Tyler and H. E. Bawson, for respondent.

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 1886, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Hammond v. Peyton (Minn. 1886)

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

Dickinson, J.

Demurrer to the complaint in an action to have declared and enforced a vendor’s lien for the purchase-money of real estate. The complaint shows the ownership of the land by the plaintiff; the conveyance of it to defendant Hanson more than two years, before the commencement of this action, for the consideration of' $1,500, all of which, by the terms of the sale, was payable to plaintiff *475upon the delivery of the deed; that when the deed was delivered the grantee paid $400 only, “and agreed to pay to the plaintiff the balance of said purchase-money within a few days thereafter;” that, although demanded, it is still unpaid, and that Hanson is insolvent. The defendant Denison is alleged to be a grantee of a portion óf the land from Hanson, and as a secret trustee for Hanson without consideration, and with knowledge of the unpaid purchase-money due to the plaintiff.

The complaint is sufficient. The right to recover the purchase-money unpaid is not denied, and the only ground upon which it is urged that the plaintiff is not entitled to a vendor’s lien upon the property is that, as is claimed, there is shown an agreement postponing the payment to an indefinite time subsequent to the giving of the deed, for which reason it is said that equity will afford no relief. We do not consider the soundness of the doctrine thus asserted, for we do not deem such to he the effect of the complaint. It shows an agreement to pay the whole price upon delivery of the deed. The subsequent language of the complaint, which we have quoted, does not import a new contract made upon the delivery of the deed and binding upon the vendor, postponing the payment of the purchase-money. It only shows that the defendant agreed to pay in a few days what he was obligated to pay presently, but it does not appear that the ‘plaintiff, by a new contract or agreement, on his part, deprived himself of the right to require payment immediately. That the property in Deni-son’s hands is subject to the vendor’s lien under the allegations of the complaint is not questioned.

Order affirmed.

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