Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Sandhoff, 14 N.W. 889.

30 citing documents.

Purcell v. Thornton 150 N.W. 899 Minn. 1915
Purcell v. Thornton 150 N.W. 899 Minn. 1915
Martin v. Fridley, 23 Minn. 13 ; Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ; Buchanan v. Reid, 43 Minn. 172 , ; Backus v. Burke, 63 Minn. 272 , .
Berg v. Olson 93 N.W. 309 Minn. 1903
Berg v. Olson 93 N.W. 309 Minn. 1903
Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , .
Law v. Citizens' Bank 89 N.W. 320 Minn. 1902
Law v. Citizens' Bank 89 N.W. 320 Minn. 1902
The marked distinction which has been recognized by this court between an ordinary mortgagee and one who has entered into possession of the premises peaceably and in good faith, in the belief that a foreclosure of his mortgage has been properly made, will be seen upon an examination of Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ; Holton v. Bowman, 32 Minn. 191 , ; Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ; Russell v. H. C. *415 Akeley L. Co., 45 Minn. 376 , .
Roberts v. Nelson 68 N.W. 14 Minn. 1896
Roberts v. Nelson 68 N.W. 14 Minn. 1896
e in the early cases of Parret v. Shaubhut, 5 Minn. 258 (323), and Thompson v. Morgan, 6 Minn. 199 (292), and while it did not at once squarely overrule these cases (see Ross v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 323 [438]), yet for many years the doctrine *242 of this court has been as above stated (Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201 , ; Morton v. Leland, 27 Minn. 35 , ; Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ; Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 276 , ; Dobbin v. Cordiner, 41 Minn. 165 , ; Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 277 , ).
Backus v. Burke 65 N.W. 459 Minn. 1895
Backus v. Burke 65 N.W. 459 Minn. 1895
Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ; Holton v. Bowman, 32 Minn. 191 , ; Jellison v. Halloran, supra.
Brame v. Towne 57 N.W. 454 Minn. 1894
Brame v. Towne 57 N.W. 454 Minn. 1894
See Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( ;) Holton v. Bowman, 32 Minn. 191 , ( ;) Rogers v. Benton, 39 Minn. 39 , ( .)
Backus v. Burke 51 N.W. 284 Minn. 1892
Backus v. Burke 51 N.W. 284 Minn. 1892
323 ;) Thorp v. Merrill, 21 Minn. 336 ; Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Jellison v. Halloran 46 N.W. 332 Minn. 1890
Jellison v. Halloran 46 N.W. 332 Minn. 1890
It is found by the court that the defendant entered into possession under color of title, claiming to be the owner in fee; and the case does' not differ materially, in this respect, from that of Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Buchanan v. Reid 45 N.W. 11 Minn. 1890
Buchanan v. Reid 45 N.W. 11 Minn. 1890
Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Dobbin v. Cordiner 42 N.W. 870 Minn. 1889
Dobbin v. Cordiner 42 N.W. 870 Minn. 1889
378 ;) Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Holbrook v. Sims 39 N.W. 74 Minn. 1888
Holbrook v. Sims 39 N.W. 74 Minn. 1888
Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Rogers v. Benton 38 N.W. 765 Minn. 1888
Rogers v. Benton 38 N.W. 765 Minn. 1888
Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Conlan v. Grace 30 N.W. 880 Minn. 1886
Conlan v. Grace 30 N.W. 880 Minn. 1886
378 ;) Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 , ( 14 N. W. Rep.
Coles v. County of Washington 27 N.W. 497 Minn. 1886
Coles v. County of Washington 27 N.W. 497 Minn. 1886
And so, also, we think the position of one claiming title under a foreclosure sale, and paying taxes under the belief that such sale is valid, but which turns out to be void, is equally favorable; for in such case he may be treated as an equitable assignee who has succeeded to the rights of the mortgagee, (Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 ; 14 N. W. Rep.
Holton v. Bowman 19 N.W. 734 Minn. 1884
Distinguished Holton v. Bowman 19 N.W. 734 Minn. 1884
As to this, the ease is not distinguishable from Johnson v. Sandhoff, 30 Minn. 197 .