Holt State Bank v. Hamernes
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 1972, 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
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wagner v. Bankers Life Co. (Minn. 1939)
- Gardner v. W. M. Prindle & Co. (Minn. 1932)
- Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Minn. 1972)
- Pulsifer v. Paxton (Minn. 1942)
- State Dept. of Rural Credit v. County of Washington (Minn. 1940)
- Fredin v. Cascade Realty Co. (Minn. 1939)
- House v. Anderson (Minn. 1936)
- Business Women's Holding Co. v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank (Minn. 1935)
- Grady v. First State Security Co. (Minn. 1930)
- Windom National Bank v. Reno (Minn. 1927)
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 plaintiff appeals from an order denying application for the appointment of a receiver of the property of the defendant Hamernes.
On November 17, 1921, the defendant gave the plaintiff bank a mortgage for $2,500, due July 1, 1922. It was foreclosed under the power of sale and the mortgaged property was purchased by the bank at the foreclosure sale on November 13, 1926, for $2,000, a sum more than $1,000 less than was due on the mortgage. There were delinquent taxes to the amount of $575 which were a paramount lien at the time of the foreclosure sale. The amount is the same now. The property produces a rental of $25 per month.
The mortgagor is the legal owner of the land after the foreclosure sale and is entitled to the rents and profits until the expiration of the year of redemption, except as they may be taken from him and applied in prevention or reduction of waste. When the plaintiff bought at the sale for $2,000 it took into consideration the $575 taxes in fixing the amount of its bid. To permit it to apply the rents on the taxes would be the equivalent of giving it the property for less than it bid; and to apply it on the principal not paid by the sale would be giving it the equivalent of possession during the redemption period. Neither can be done. Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112, 78 N. W. 978. And see Peterson v. Herington, 169 Minn. 65, 210 N. W. 617.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.