eous ruling on the question of jurisdiction, but for the purpose of a trial of the action on the merits in a new tribunal. The district court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant when he himself invoked the jurisdiction generally, and the cause, therefore, should have been tried upon the merits. Seurer 'v. Horst, 31 Minn. 479, 18 N. W. Rep. 283, is an express author- ity in favor of our views. For the error in refusing to enter- tain jurisdiction of the case the judgment of the district court is reversed, and that court is directed to proceed with the trial of the action as in other cases of similar appeals. All concur.
ANDREW SANDAGER and HANS HAUGAN, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant
and Appellant.
Chattel Mortgages-Rights of Mortgagee.
Plaintiffs were the owners of a chattel mortgage, properly filed. Among other provisions contained in the mortgage were the following: "And it is hereby agreed that if default be made in the payment of the said debt, or any part thereof, or if any attempt be made to remove or dispose of said property, or if at any time said mortgagees shall deem the said debt unsafe or insecure, or whenever they shall choose to so do, they are hereby authorized, either by themselves or agent, to enter upon the premises where the said property may be, and remove and sell the same," etc. While the mortgage was in full force and unsatisfied defendant unlawfully took possession of the property covered by the mortgage, and converted the same to its own use. Held, that under the power to "remove and sell" the property the owner of the mortgage was authorized to take possession upon condition broken and that, having the right to take possession, they were also in a position to maintain an action against the defendant for the value of the mortgaged property, which defendant had unlawfully taken and converted.
(Opinion Filed February 25, 1891. Re-hearing Denied April 1, 1891.)
APPEAL from district court, Ransom county; Hon. W. S. LAUDER, Judge.
A. C. Davis, for appellant. Rourke & Allen and Goodwin & Van Pelt for respondents.
