Paulle v. Wallis
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 1894, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Crandall v. Title Guarantee and Trust Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
- State v. O'Connor (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
The question presented by the complaint and demurrer is: When a mortgage with a power of sale is upon separate tracts of land, lying in different counties, can it be foreclosed under the power, and all the tracts sold, upon a notice of sale published in only one of the counties? The publication of notice in a newspaper is necessary only because the statute requires it, and, if the publication be as required by the statute, it is sufficient
The statute (1878 G. S. ch. 81, § 5) provides that the notice shall be published “in a newspaper printed and published in the county where the premises intended to bé sold or some part thereof are situated.” Similar terms are used in providing where the sale shall be (section 7): “The sale shall be * * * in the county in which the premises to be sold or some part thereof are situated.” A construction which would require, in a case where there are separate tracts in different counties, that the notice shall be published in-each county, would also require a sale in each county of the land lying within it. But it is manifest there is to be but one sale, and one notice published. The terms of the statute are too clear to admit any other meaning.
We understand from counsel that the court below construed the statute to mean that when the mortgaged premises constitute one tract, as one farm, situated part in each of two or more counties, a
That interpretation requires a reconstruction of the statute, leaving out words that are used, and bringing in other words. We see no reason calling for that. ' The statute must be taken as it reads.
No other ground for setting aside the foreclosure is sufficiently stated in the complaint
Order reversed.
(Opinion published 59 N, W. 999.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.