Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

McMahan v. Lundin

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 20, 1894 · Buck, Collins, Sick

57 Minn. 84; 58 N.W. 827; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 226 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Horace W. Brown and Broten é Bayrell, for appellant., Brown é Carr, 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 1931, 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

8 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Hart (District Court, D. North Dakota 1982)
McCarthy v. Thorson (Minn. 1931)
Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Moorhead Farmers Elevator Co. (Minn. 1928)
State Bank of Stephen v. Farmers Grain Co. (Minn. 1928)
Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co. (Minn. 1913)
Endreson v. Larson (Minn. 1907)
Sitton v. Dubois (Wash. 1896)
Douglas v. Leighton (Minn. 1894)

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

Collins, J.

By 1878 G. S. ch. 39, § 22, it is enacted that from the time of filing in the proper office of a seed grain note, executed in accordance with section 21 of the same chapter, the party furnishing the seed grain for which the note is given, or his assigns, shall have a valid first lien or claim upon the crop grown from such seed. The statute is clear and plain, and its policy is wise and just. It must be construed exactly as it reads. He who in good faith sells and furnishes seed from which a crop may be raised, and properly files a note taken for the same, should be and is entitled to priority of lien over all other persons.

We see nothing in the suggestion that the obligation of a contract is impaired if it be declared that a lien arising by virtue of a seed-grain note has priority over a lien upon the same property acquired by means of the provisions of a previously executed chattel mortgage. The power of the legislature to provide for first liens of this character ought not to be doubted.

Again, a mortgage upon a crop not yet planted or sown attaches only to such interest as the mortgagor has in the crop when it comes into being. Simmons v. Anderson, 44 Minn. 487, (47 N. W. 52.)

Judgment affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, did not sit.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 827.)

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