Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-04-24

Judge.
T. F. McCue, for appellant.
Turner & Wright. for respondent.
| Judgment affirmed.
Opinion by Fisk, J.
All concur.
A. ID. Clarke & Co., respondent, v.
Michael b. Doyle, ct al, appellants.
Following the decision of this court
in Adams & Freese Company v. Ken
oyer ct al, it is held that chapter
s, laws of 1905, which provides that
a mortgagor's absence or non-resi-
dence from the state shall not sus-
pend the running of the statute of
limitations as to actions and pro-
ceedings for the foreclosure of mort
cages on real property, does not ap-
| ply to causes of action which accru-
ed prior to the passage of said stat
ute for the reasons: first, that no
| time was fixed by the legislature for
| the commencement of actions upon
such existing causes of action after
the taking effect of such statute and,
second, that if the time between the
| passage and the approval of the act,
March 10) and it's taking effect,
| (July u was intended to be the
time fixed for such purpose, the same
is unreasonable.
The note and mortgage in suit were
asigned4to plaintiff by one Alexander
Mckenzie the payee and MORTGAGE.
Prior to such assignment it was ad-
| judged in a former action brought
| against said Mckenzie and others
that they had no right, title or in
terest in and to the property cover
| ed by such mortgage, but this So
called judgment was nullity in so
| far as they said Mckenzie is con-
cerned for the reason that he was
never legally served with a summons
in such action nor did he make any
| appearance therein. Held: That the
rights of Mckenzie under said mort
| gage, were in no manner affected by
said former Judgment, and hence the
| plaintiff acquired good title to the
note and mortgage through said as
| signment.
| (Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Morton county: Hon. w. H. Win
chester, judge.
| VIII. Stutsman, for appellant.
S. l.. Nuchols, for respondent.
| Judgment affirmed.
Opinion by Fisk, J.
All concur.
Lands Machine Co., corporation
| respondent, v. Konantz Saddlery
| Goa corporation, appellant.
On an appeal from a judgment, the
! 70 tn M q
rected verdict at the close of the
testimony, or to make new motion
for directed verdict, precludes re
view of the correctness of ruling
on a motion for directed verde
made at the close of plaintiffs case
Where no motion for new trial i
made, the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain a verdict cannot be re
viewed.
A motion for Judgment notwith
standing a verdict, is not prope
where no motion for directed yer
dict was made at the close of plain
tiff's case.
An objection to the offer of note
or documents in evidence, is incon
: petent, irrelevant and immaterial,
: too general and does not raise a.
objection thereto that the execution
of the notes has not been proven.
The admission of hearsay evidenc
is not prejudicial error when the OF
!, jecting party thereafter establishe
: by his own evidence the facts test
: fed to, based on hearsay.
(Syllabus by the COURT
Appeal from the district court {
Ward county: Hon. E. B. Cos!
judge
II LIE Sueur & Bradford, for appel
ant.
Geo. H. Gjertsen, for respondent.
e Judgment affirmed.
; Opinion by Morgan. G. J.
S All concur.
8. Lehman NJ. Grove and J. Fultz. az
: pelIants, v. The Great Norther
Loan Company, respondent.
A mortgage given for interest par
!: ly in excess of II per cent per annul
e is not void in this state.
A purchaser of real estate subjee
). to mortgage thereon for interes
= partly in excess of - per cent pc
annum is entitled to defend again:
8 the foreclosure of such mortgage S
far as the entire interest is concerne
I unless the amount of the usuriou
y mortgage was deducted from tn
purchase price.
s The purchaser in such cases
: permitted to defend as against u:
ury, on the ground that he stand
in privity of contract and estat
. with the mortgagOr.
The mere fact that the purchase
of real estate did not have actu;
notice of a mortgage on the Ian
i does not entitle him to set asid
:, the sheriff's deed under foreclo:
ure regular in all respects wher
the mortgage was duly recorded an
q the only ground on which relief
asked is that the mortgage was Vi
urious.
A foreclosure by advertisement ha
the same binding force as foreclosure
). by action in which the parties al
personally served with process.
No personal notice to the mortgt
e gor or his grantees is required
; render foreclosure by advertise
e ment effectual.