Minnesota Supreme Court, 1886

Hanson v. Dunton

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 21, 1886 · Berry

35 Minn. 189; 28 N.W. 221; 1886 Minn. LEXIS 82 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Berry hill é Davison, for appellants., Uri L. Lamprey, 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 1897, 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.

Loomis v. Clambey (Minn. 1897)

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

Berry, J.

By the terms of the mortgage involved in this ease the whole amount which it secured was to become due upon the mortgagor’s default in the payment of interest. By foreclosing for the principal, and for at least a part of the overdue interest, before the expiration of the time fixed for the payment of the principal, the mortgagee exercised its election (if any were required) to treat, and in fact did treat, the whole amount of principal and accrued interest as due, and, having assumed to foreclose on this basis, it necessarily foreclosed once for all.

Having thus made that which the mortgagor might have paid in instalments payable as an entirety, the entirety became one and indivisible, and the mortgagee could not split it into two or more parcels, and foreclose first for one and afterwards for others. The first foreclosure exhausted the lien of the mortgage. Dick v. Moon, 26 Minn. 309, (4 N. W. Rep. 39,) appears to cover this case completely. There is no true analogy between it and a case in which, a mortgage debt being payable in instalments, a foreclosure has been had for the first instalment when due, and, redemption from the sale having been *191effected, a subsequent foreclosure maybe had for the next instalment when it becomes due. Here the whole mortgage debt became due as ■an entirety, and was so treated by the mortgagee at the time of and by its foreclosure.

Judgment affirmed.

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