The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-01-13
DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT

In the Supreme Court, State of
North Dakota, october Term, 1912.
c. A. C~osgrave, plaintiff and re-
spondent, VS.. II. A. McAvay, defend
ant and appellant.
Plaintiff seeks to ~foreclose q record
ed real estate mortgage upon lands in
Kidder county, this state, securing a
negotiable principal note of $1,000,
and interest coupons, due at the ONCE
of the mortgage in Minneapolis. The
mortgage sold the notes before
maturity and assigned of record the
mortgage TO plaintiff. Defendant,
mortgagor, had nc knowledge or
notice of such assignment, and sup
posing the mortgage still owned the
notes and mortgage, paid him in full
therefor before maturity Of the prin-
.cipal note and three Of the unpaid
interest coupon notes. The mort
gagee, upon such payment, did not
produce or surrender to the mortgagor
the notes or mortgage, or inform the
mortgagor of their transfer, and died
without paying plaintiff, holder, any
part of the principal note so paid the
mortgage in full by the m~ortgagor,
Upon a subsequent installment OF
interest coming due and being unpaid
DldlAllllI, DuESudnk W duIltOI1Ay COAi~.
tanned in the mortgage, declared the
principal debt Immediately due and
payable, and brought this action to
foreciose the mortgage to recover the
mortgage debt. Defendant pleads
that under Sec. 4183, of the statutes
Of Minnesota, the mortgage debt was
satisfied by the payment to the mort
gagee. That statute reads: THE
record of an assignment of mortgage
shall not in itself be deemed notice
OF such assignment to the mortgagor,
his heirs or personal representatives,
so as to invalidate any payment made
by them, or either of them, to the
mortgagee.'' Under our statute, Sec.
6167, r. c. 1905, to discharge the debt
the payment must be made ito the
person holding such note, bond or
other instrument" BY the Minnesota
statute, notwithstanding a mortgage
may so provide. the due date Of the
| principal note cannot be advanced on
a default In payment OF interest. De
PENDANT contends that the notes and
mortgage are Minnesota contracts,
there performabIe, and are governed
by the laws OF that state claimed to
[ discharge the debt and mortgage; and
prevent a foreclosure for the prin-
cipai debt not due, if the principal
debt be held to be not satisfied,
held:
~ Though the contract Us one be-
tween Minnesota. parties and govern
ed by the Minnesota law, the Min
nesota recording statute does not dis
charge the mortgage debt and cannot
affect the mortgage as a contract for
security upon lands in this state.
CD The courts will administer the
law Of the forum government pro-
| ccdurA in foreclosure.
I3) Though the principal debt may
not have been due upon mortgagor's
default In payment Of interest, fore,
closure could be had for the full
amount, less rebated interest.
tSylIabus by the courts
An appeal from the district couri
OF Kidder county, Winchester, y.
Affirmed on ~rehearing had. Opinion
by Goss, j.
Stanley & Phelps, of Steele, ~. u,
and s. E. Ellsworth, of jamestown, N
ID. and Jesse Van yalkenburg, d
Minneapolis, Mimi, attorneys TO,
plaintiff and respondent.
n. Ct. Mcfarland and J. Al. Murphy
Of jamestown, n. ID, and Sanauc
Whaley, Of st. Paul. Mimi, attorney,
for defendant and appellant.
4 MMF M MA