Cited by

Minnesota Statutes Section 559.17; Petition of SRA, Inc., 213 Minn. 487 , Niggeler vs. Maurin, 23 Minn. 118

In Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , , this court held that a second or further conveyance, growing out of a prior mortgage, or taken in virtue of that relation, cannot be set up to bar a redemption.

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Nelson v. Helmbrecht, 155 Minn. 327 , .

From the early case of Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118, 124 , , doAvn to the present time, this court has expressed a steadfast determination to see that the transaction by which the mortgagor parts with his equity of redemption is untainted by oppression or overreaching.

and vesting legal title to the land in the mortgagee, any one of the following factors, if found, will control: (a) If the mortgagee used oppressive means to exact the conveyance or took unconscionable advantage of the mortgagor’s necessities; (b) if the mortgagee paid the mortgagor an inadequate consideration for the conveyance, Holien v. Slee, 120 Minn. 261 , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Aretz v. Kloos, 89 Minn. 432 , ; or (c) if the parties made a parol agreement that the conveyance

Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382 ; Krelwitz v. McDonald, 135 Minn. 408 , ; Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 203 , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Bandall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , .

stinguished from Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , , wherein documentary evidence shoAved that, although contract followed deed by three months, it had been “originally agreed that the contract should be executed as part of the transaction.” Whatever presumptions may formerly have been indulged concerning such a transaction (see 1 Jones, Mortgages (8 ed.) § 331; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Marshall v. Thompson, 39 Minn. 137 , ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Holien v. Slee, 120 Min

Buse v. Page, 32 Minn. 111 , , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Citizens Bank of Morris v. Meyer, 149 Minn. 94 , ; Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , .

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118, 121 , ; Citizens Bank v. Meyer, supra.

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; 27 Cyc.

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , .

A conveyance from a third party is within the rule, Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , .

Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , .

The case is controlled by the principle of such cases as Fisk v. Stewart, 24 Minn. 97 ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co. 94 Minn. 529 , ; and Grout v. Stewart, 96 Minn. 230 , .

Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382 ; Smith v. Lytle, 27 Minn. 184 , ; Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329 , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312 , , 3 L.R.A.

ted in Fisk v. Stewart, 24 Minn. 97 , “nor is it at all important as affecting the rights and obligations of the party taking-the conveyance that he received it from another, who happens to hold the legal title, instead of the borrower, in whom is vested the equity of redemption, so that it is obtained through the instance and request of the latter and for his benefit.” And in Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , , “plaintiff, being vested with the equitable title, had an interest capable of being

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Reider v. Walz, 93 Minn. 399 , .

Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ; In re Pinney’s Will, 27 Minn. 280 , , ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , .

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ; Marshall v. Thompson, 39 Minn. 137 , ; Bradbury v. Davenport, 114 Cal.

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , .

Fisk v. Stewart, 24 Minn. 97 ; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.

530 ;) Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.

Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 118 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.