Minnesota Supreme Court, 1892

Pioneer Savings & Loan Co. v. Farnham

Pioneer Savings & Loan Co. v. Farnham
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 27, 1892 · Gilfillan
50 Minn. 315; 52 N.W. 897; 1892 Minn. LEXIS 305 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

G. D. Emery and S. M. Davis, for appellant., W. H. Adams and C. C. Joslyn, 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 1993, 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

Pioneer Savings & Loan Co. v. Farnham

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

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.

Farnham executed to plaintiff a mortgage upon real estate, with the ordinary habendum clause, “to have and to hold *318the same-with all and singular the use, income, rents, profits,” etc. Under a power of sale in the mortgage plaintiff foreclosed it by sale June 13, 1891, becoming itself the purchaser at a price sufficient to cover the full amount due on the mortgage and costs and expenses of sale. It brings this action to have a receiver appointed to collect the rents accruing during the year for redemption, and pay them to it. Assume that the mortgage also pledged the rents and profits as security for the debt, and still it is impossible to see how such an action can be maintained. The remedy upon the mortgage as a security was exhausted by the foreclosure. It thereupon became, as security, functus oficio, and its only future office was as a muniment of title, in case of the mortgagor’s failure to redeem. The debt it secured ceased to exist. After the foreclosure the rights of the parties were to be measured, not by anything in the mortgage, except so far as it was a muniment of title, or in the note it secured, but by the statute. That gave to the mortgagor the right to redeem within a year, and the right of possession meantime; to the purchaser the right to become absolute owner of the real estate, or to receive the price bid, with interest. These rights are absolute, and the parties cannot be deprived of them. The relief sought by plaintiff would deprive the mortgagor of the right to the possession before the time to redeem expires.

(Opinion published 52 N. W. Rep. 897.)

Orders affirmed.

(Opinion published 52 N. W. Rep. 897.)

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