Delaney v. Fritz
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 2000, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Abrahamson v. Abrahamson (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
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
This appeal is taken from an order sustaining a demurrer to the answer. The question presented is whether one of several payees of a note secured by mortgage may accept payment and effectually discharge the debt and mortgage.
August 21, 1936, Thomas V. and Elizabeth M. Delaney executed and delivered a promissory note for $4,000, secured by mortgage on real estate, to Joseph Hassler and Leo Doll. In 1936 Hassler died, and in 1938 Doll died. Both left heirs, and to each group of heirs the probate court decreed an undivided one-half interest in the debt so secured.
On December 29, 1943, the mortgagors paid the Hassler heirs their half of the debt. They also paid thé other half to two of the three Doll heirs. The third Doll heir (defendant here) refused to accept $580.92 tendered to her by her coheirs as her interest in *191 the mortgage, claiming she was entitled to $745.21. She then started a foreclosure of the mortgage by advertisement. The mortgagors brought this action seeking a permanent injunction against foreclosure. The defendant answered, and the plaintiffs demurred. The lower court sustained the demurrer.
Prior to payment by the mortgagors of the one-half Doll interest, the defendant notified the mortgagors that she held a one-third interest in the mortgage debt, as decreed to her by the probate court.
The issue here is whether payment to the other two Doll heirs of the full amount due on the Dolls’ half interest constituted a satisfaction of the debt and mortgage.
In the will that Leo Doll left, the provision by which the Doll heirs received the interest in the note and mortgage stated, that they should receive any property not already devised “share and share alike.” The probate court decreed to them “An undivided Yz Interest.” The Doll heirs were, therefore, • owners of the undivided one-half interest in the note and mortgage.
Where an undivided debt secured by mortgage is owed to two or more creditors, it may, when due or thereafter, be paid to either or any one of such creditors, and the one or ones to whom it is paid may effectually discharge the debt and mortgage. People ex rel. Eagle v. Keyser, 28 N. Y. 226, at pp. 228, 235, 84 Am. D. 338. Flanigan v. Seelye, 53 Minn. 23, 55 N. W. 115; Moore v. Bevier, 60 Minn. 240, 62 N. W. 281; Annotation, 142 A. L. R. 371; 2 Jones, Mortgages (8 ed.) § 1224. Therefore, in this case the debt and mortgage were discharged and satisfied. The rights of the creditors, as between themselves, are not here involved. Dunphy v. Gilliam Mfg. Co. 21 Ohio Cir. Ct. 696, cited by appellant, is clearly distinguishable.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.