Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1906-02-05
SUPREME COURT
ReVersals I'm Interesting
Real Estate Cases From
Bottineau and Mclean


8. S. srynioIfson, respondent, VS..
icnrissiana Dagner, ct al, appellants. 4
/ L The possession of land by one
who claims title under warranty
deed from the purchaser at a fore
closure sale is adverse, even though
the foreclosure sale may be Told.
2. The fact that the grantee Of the
purchaser at a Toid foreclosure sale
may be deemed IN equity TO be mort
Egagee In possession does mot make
him such i'm fact so that his possession
under his supposed valid claim of
title is not to be regarded as adverse
to the mortgagor.
/ 3. The grantor in warranty deed
who holds a previously existing mort
Gage on the granted premises cannot
assert any rights as mortgage
against his grantee; and one who
subsequently acquires the mortgage
i from such grantor is in no better posi-
Z tion unless he shows himself entitled
ito the protection accorded to innocent
I purchasers. - 0
f. Parol evidence that given note
WAS secured by real estate mortgage
lis incompetent, where no reason APP
zIpears for the non-proiuctson of the
instrument or an authenticated copy
4 thereof TX
4 5. Evidence examined and held
i that the deed Upon which plaintiff
: bases his claim OF title lis void be-
], Ieaase given and received in violation
; ;of section 1902, Revised Codes of 1899.
Appeal from the district court OF
, IBottineau county; L, J. Palda, judge
8 a. Besancon and Newman, Holt &
2 Frame, for appellants. Z.
Il Tracy r. Bangs, for respondent.
ri Opinion by Engerud, y. Judgment
+ is reversed and the cause win be re
0 manded TO the said district court with
< directions to render Judgment aismis
9 sing the action with costs OF bot
It Icourts. s.,.,.szs ( !. i. ~ ~
o Fred Spencer, respondent, VS.. T.
% seiseker, appellant. IS r
O. l. 1t is the duty Of the trial cour
l. in actions brought to determine ad
d verse claims to real property unde
jchapter 5, laws Of 1901, to adjudicat.
land determine all claims set forth Il
s. the defendants answer and the fai
e ure to do SO Is error. sz '21 II .5 Al
u 2. An equity action In which a jnr
d is called 10 find part or all OF the facts
u Ii not IAN action tried witt
m out a jury" within the meaning q
le fsection $500, Revised Codes Of 1893
y and is therefore not governed by tina
e. Isectfon either as to the manner {
ss trial in the district court or the revie'
er in this court upon appeal. fFoIlowin
a Peckham rs. Van Bergen. :. N. /
n 1851 81 Il
OF Appeal from the district court 4
ne Mclean county; w. H. Winchegte
is Judge. @.s. ri z t:s.$ sss5
Mt r. "A. PaImeter, Hanchett & War
ne ner and Guy G. H. Corliss, for appe
ri liant. IN ssz e.. .=.z* ..@s "a. .55
II. r.. Turner, for respondent. .
Opinion by Young, J. Judgment !
versed and new trial ordered.
he Mccormick Harvesting Machi,
a Co.. appellant W.. Citizens Bank
q Drayton, Garnishee, respondent. \
Pr Il IA bill of sale of property abs
of lutte In terms but given as securi
ay for a present Indebtedness and &
st, future advances, Is not fraudulent
eai against creditors as a matter of law.
m 2, Evidence considered and fouI
TO show that there was no money
4; property belonging to defendant In Il
M garnfshees possession when Il
nd garnishee summons was served.
ne Appeal from the district court
ne Pembina county w. ]. Kneesha
sbf judge. 4 4
'gs w B. Kellogg and Charles r. ne
'ry pIeton, for appellant
oc- Robert Ferguson and NJ. BrynJo
nd son, for respond rit s35
nd Opinion BY Morgan, G. .. Jul
llys ment affirmed
III 3t ~ q l8s
sts Enter Buttons business College
ad- arsf week and you Will save ma
Cd dollars Sd tuition.
ols
VALENTINES AT Phelps.