The Redwood gazette., 1900-12-26

municipal court on record with the
clerk of the district court, and paid
Eover to Sheriff Pease the amount Of
the Fidelities Securities Go. mort
|sgdge, together with the interest,
lcosts and disbursements. In re-
turn therefore he received the sher-
IFS certificate of redemption. At
! the same time he received the prop
er execution from the district court.
The sheriff's S certificate placed his
firm in the position of owners of the
land, but the Fidelities Securities
Co. refused to accept the money
paid by Mr.. Schmahl to the sheriff,
claiming that his firm had no right
to redeem and that the transcript of
judgment from the municipal court
against Mr.. Lund was no good. At
that time Walter A. Thompson was
on the tract as a tenant, and it be-
came. necessary for Francois &
Schmahl to sue for possession. D.
A. Stuart Of Window, formerly Of
this city, who was thoroughly famil-
lar with the case, was retained by
| Francois & Schmahl, and suit was
commenced at once. Last spring
Mr.. Schmahl entered upon the prem
! Uses and seeded the same. and in
the fall he harvested the crop, both
sides putting up the required bonds
to indemnify the other, in case either
side won out. The case came up
for trial at the spring term of court
and the jury returned verdict in
favor Of the plaintiffs, giving them
absolute possession of the land.
A stay Of proceedings was grant
ed, and later the attorneys for de-
PENDANTS asked that the verdict OF
! the jury be set aside, and that they
be granted judgment, notwithstand-
ing the same. Judge Webber later
rendered decision, granting the
motion, and from this decision an
appeal to the Supreme Court vas
taken by Francois & Schmahl. The
case was submitted to that body on
Tuesday, Dec. 11th, and just ten
days after that body, through JUS
rice Lovely, reversed Judge Web
Iner's order and sustained the ver-
| dict in favor of Francois & Schmahl
1 lie chief question was as to whetn-
err the municipal court Judgment
transcript was any good, and the
Supreme Court decides that it was
in the following syllabus of it's de-
cision on the case:
"The law providing for the filing OF
the transcripts of judgments rendered
in the municipal courts of this State,
G. l.. 1895, sections and s, is distinct
from and not controlled py the statute
relating to the returning or filing tran
scripts of justice court judgments. and
the former are sufficient if they contain
the docket entries of such judgments.
when transcript of a judgment in
a municipal court contains the name
of the judgment debtor and creditor,
the date of docketing, as well as the
amount of the judgment, it is sufficient
if duly certified by the clerk of the dis
trict court, to entitle the same to filing
in the office of the clerk of the district
court, as basis for the right to redeem
from real estate mortgage foreclosure.
"Although such municipal court
transcript does not show that the judg-
ment, exclusive of costs, was more than
SIS, in which case only is the judgment
creditor entitled to certificate tran.
script; yet when the total amount stat
ed in such transcript is more than that
sum it will be presumed that the clerk
who issued the same has done his duty,
and that it was properly issued
The defense now only can ask the
lower court for new trial. In case
it is not granted it will haye the
right to appeal from this order, or
vice versa. The attorneys on this
side claim that there was enough
error in the first trial to give them
a second trial. The Supreme Court
costs. ETC., including all other costs
up to the present time. will have to
be paid by the Fidelities Securities
Co. The costs amount to several
hundred dollars.
| Attorney D. A. Stuart, who has
had personal charge of the case for
the plaintiffs, is naturally elated
over the victory Mr.. Stuart was
certain Of winning out from the
start, and Judge WebDer's order
giving judgment for the defense
was big surprise to him. When