38 N.W.2d 70 | Minn. | 1949
The sole issue is whether, in title registration proceedings, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief in excess of that demanded in the application when it adjudicated a mortgage of a nonanswering defendant to have been executed without consideration and to have been satisfied in fact. Respondent, as administrator of the estate of Otto Rood, deceased, on February 4, 1948, in his application for the registration of title to real estate in Hennepin county, alleged in part as follows:
"G. Liens and encumbrances on the land, recorded or unrecorded: Home Owners! Loan Corp., * * *. Unpaid balance on real estate mortgage.
* * * * *
"J. Defects, if any, in applicant's title: Otto Rood claimsto hold a valid second mortgage on said premises.
"Wherefore the applicant prays the court to find and declarethe title or interest of the applicant in said land and decreethe same, and order the registrar of titles to register the same, and to grant such other and further relief as shall be according to equity." (Italics supplied.)
The Otto Rood named as the claimant of the second mortgage is the appellant herein.
The examiner of titles in his written report to the district court on March 6, 1948, said:
"* * * I will recommend as defendants both Otto L. Rood as trustee and also Otto L. Rood, individually, and I assume fromthe statements of the application that the existence of anylien in his favor in either capacity is questioned and will be covered by evidence at the hearing so that there may be find [ing]s of fact covering the subject in the decree of registration." (Italics supplied.)
Pursuant to M.S.A.
1-2. Was relief granted in excess of that demanded in the application? The general rules that govern procedure in an ordinary civil action apply to title registration proceedings under M.S.A. c. 508, unless such statute provides otherwise.2 Section
3. In a judgment by default, plaintiff's relief is strictly limited in nature and degree to that specifically demanded in the complaint — or the application in title registration proceedings — and it makes no difference that other and greater relief might be justified by the allegations and proofs.3 In determining the specific nature and degree of relief demanded in the complaint, it may be necessary to construe the prayer for relief in conjunction with the allegations of the complaint as a whole. Section
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE THOMAS GALLAGHER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.