Minnesota Supreme Court, 1893

Van Brunt v. Gordon

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 9, 1893 · Mitchell, Took, Vanderburgh

53 Minn. 227; 54 N.W. 1118; 1893 Minn. LEXIS 308 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

James Spencer, for appellant., Walter Ayers, 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 1951, 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

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Bard v. Bemidji Bottle Gas Co. (D. Minn. 1958)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co. (Wis. 1953)
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. (Minn. 1951)
Merrimac Mining Co. v. Gross (Minn. 1943)
Waldref v. Dow (Minn. 1927)
Oswald v. Pillsbury (Minn. 1895)

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

Mitchell, J.

The short facts are that plaintiff and defendant took leases of certain real estate for a term of years, in which they covenanted and agreed to pay the lessors a certain rent, and to pay the taxes on the premises during the term. The premises were unimproved and unproductive, the leases being apparently purely speculative. During the life of the leases the plaintiff paid all the taxes and rent, and he now brings suit for contribution to compel defendant to pay her share.

Counsel for defendant has made an exhaustive brief upon the law as to the rights and liabilities of cotenants between each other, growing out of their mere connection with the common property, irrespective of any contract between themselves or with third persons; but, with all deference to the learned counsel, we think this is entirely foreign to the facts of this case. These taxes and rent constituted a debt which plaintiff and defendant were jointly obligated to pay, just the same as if they had bought the property, and given their joint note for the purchase money; and their rights are to be determined by precisely the same rules as if the obligation had been contracted by persons who never bore to each other the relation of tenants in common. The fact that they were tenants in *230common of the property for which this joint obligation was contracted has nothing to' do with the case. The simple facts are that both were equally bound by their contract to pay certain sums of money, and one of them has paid the whole. The familiar rule applies that the one who has paid more than his share is entitled to contribution from the other to reimburse him for the excess so paid, and thus equalize their common burdens. This rule is based on the maxim that equality is equity.

Judgment affirmed.

Vanderburgh, J., absent, took no part.

(Opinion published 54 N. W. Rep. 1118.)

Application for reargument denied May 23, 1893.

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