usnrrx v. rorm. s 15
While in li i distrib t` , his h'ld , f his ,b a f ther may
be considerzdmds gcgcumstagchogemdlxgdo utablnhiintsoundlixrelsgcdfymhd sud dndue
influence, it is not of itself conclusive, and sufficient to avoid settlement, Salisbury v.
éldrifho, (I1l.)·8 N. E. Rep. 777; or to set aside a will, Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, (Ky.) 1 B. W.
Mmm v. Perm. ` , _
(Uvhwufl Uowrt, D. Minnesota. February, 1887.) ,
1. Monreaen-Dann Ansonnrm on Fac1t——Bo1m or Dnriusaacn ro Tamb Pm-
sou-Fonaenosunm.
A., the owner of lend, conveyed it by absolute deed to B., as security for a
debt. B. afterwards, with the co·operation of A., conveyed it to C., to secure ‘
a loan made by C. to A., C. at their request giving back e bond to convey,
upon payment, to D. Held, that C. was justi ed in treating D. as the owner
_ 0 the equity of redemption, although he knew that the deed from A. to B.
V was intended as amortgage, and even though the bond to D. was in fact never
delivered to him, and he never knew of lt, and that a title obtained by C., by
foreclosure proceedings against D. alone, was valid as against a claim on the
part 'of A. or B., or their representatives.! ~
I. SAME*FOREGLOBURE—SERVICB nr Puamclvrron. - . J
Asuit for foreclosure of a mortgage, not seeking a personal judgment, is
, essentially aproceeding mum, an service by publication, in e case allowed
by the statute, is suflicient to give jurisdiction. " · p ·» I ·
8. Scans-Igliglgme Suuuoss ro Waous LDDBEBS¥LFFIDLV_1'P—LAWB   186&
Under Laws Minn. 1869, c. 73, § 49, allowing service by publication upon af-
fidavit stating, among other things, that (plaintiff has mailed a copy of the
summons to defendant at his place of resi` ence, .“unless it is stated in the af~
fldavit that his residence is not known to aiiiant, " the fact .that the address to
which the copy of summons; was mailed, as stated in the ailidavit, was not in
fact the residence of defendant, held, not to render the judgment void; the
plaintiff having acted in good faith, upon the best information obtainable, the
aiiidavit being in proper form, the publication being properly made, and the
' judgment reciting due service by publication. _
4. SAME—WHAT Brenrs Fons:c1.osnn—Cm.ms m Dmanmm Rrerrrs. ` ’ `
The coniplaint in a mortgage foreclosure suit alleged that defendants —
· ‘ `cleimed some interest in or lien upon the premises, as owners of the e nity of
redelmptiomwhich interestor lien, if any, it alleged to be subjlect to tlhe ien I
_ of t _e mortgage, and prayedthat defendants be foreclosedof e lequit B of re- ‘
demption, an ·other interest in the premises. The decree ordered that the
· titleof the purchaser at the sale should, in case of non-redemdption, be ad-
judged free. and clear of all equity of redemption on the part of p efendants or
those claiming under them. He , that the proceedinlgs foreclosed a title of
l defendantwderlvedfrom an execution sale, upon e ju gment in favor ofthlrd
parties antedating the mortgage, as well as his title as mortgagor, , ·
‘ In Equity. A `“   h . ‘
Bartleson do Shaw, for complainant. ’ ‘ ’ ‘ i
Young J: Lightner, for defendant. l · ·
Bmgwmn, J Q This is a bill to redeem from a mortgage. The facts
are these: Prior to November, 1873, R. J. Mendenhall ownedthe land _
in controversy, being a tract of 10 acres in the cityuof Minneapolis. On
` M. deed absolute, on its face, and a bond for reconveyance executed at the same time,
constitute a mortgage. Frey vl Campbell, (Ky.) B` B. W. Rep. 368, and note. V ,