Cited by

Henschke v. Christian, 228 Minn. 142 , 36 N. W. (2d) 547 ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Staughton v. Simpson, 69 Minn. 314 , .” In Sanderson v. Engel, 182 Minn. 256 , , the syllabus summarizes the holding as follows: “A pledge of real property for the payment of a debt, in whatever form the transaction is clothed, is a mortgage, and the right of the owner to re

Henschke v. Christian, 228 Minn. 142 , 36 N. W. (2d) 547 ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Staughton v. Simpson, 69 Minn. 314 , .

United States v. Minnesota (D. Minn.) 113 F. Supp. 488 ; Citizens Bank of Morris v. Meyer, 149 Minn. 94 , ; Nitkey v. Ward, 199 Minn. 334 , ; Buse v. Page, 32 Minn. 111 , , ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Westberg v. Wilson, 185 Minn. 307 , ; Hewitt v. Baker, 222 Minn. 292 , 24 N. W. (2d) 47 ; Land O’ Lakes Dairy Co. v. County of Wadena, 229 Minn. 263 , 39 N. W. (2d) 164 , affirmed, 338 U. S. 897 , 70 S. Ct. 251 , 94 L. ed. 552; Lundeen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , .

King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Hewitt v. Baker, 222 Minn. 292 , 24 N. W. (2d) 47 .

Hewitt v. Baker, 222 Minn. 292 , 24 N. W. (2d) 47 ; Nitkey v. Ward, 199 Minn. 334 , ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , .

In the case of King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222, 225 , , where the sole issue was whether a conveyance was a mortgage or a conditional sale and the only question on appeal was the trial court’s finding that the deed was in fact a mortgage and not a conditional sale, we said (Mr. Justice Mitchell speaking for the court): “No conclusive test of universal

See King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Westberg v. Wilson, 185 Minn. 307 , ; Lun-deen v. Nyborg, 161 Minn. 391 , .

King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Stitt v. Rat Portage Lbr.

Aved 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 Minn. 261 ; ) it is noAV a statutory rule of eA'idence that “no conveyance absolute in fo

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 , .

In determining whether a deed is in fact a mortgage, the courts are guided by well-defined rules, stated in King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , , and in Citizens Bank v. Meyer, 149 Minn. 94 , .

Banning v. Sabin, 51 Minn. 129 , , and King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , , relied upon by the plaintiffs, holding particular transactions equitable mortgages, do not control under the facts found.

King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222, ; Baird v. Baird, 48 Colo.

See also King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , ; Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 94 Minn. 529 , .

(2d Ed.) 953; Peugh v. Davis; 96 U. S. 332 ; Heaton v. Darling, 66 Minn. 262 , ; Backus v. Burke, 63 Minn. 272 , ; Terry v. Wilson’s Estate, 50 Minn. 570 , ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Nye v. Swan, 49 Minn. 431 , .

Holton v. Meighen, 15 Minn. (50) 69; Jones v. Blake, 33 Minn. 362 , ; Nye v. Swan, 49 Minn. 431 , ; King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Heaton v. Darling, 66 Minn. 262 , .

Mitchell, J. After the decision of the former appeal 50 Minn. 222 ( 52 N. W. Rep.