The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1913-06-20
LEIGHTON aEyEasEs


it off to the mortgage IT nc
one bid a greater sum.
2. Mere inadequacy of price
at a foreclosure sale is not a
ground on which to set aside a
foreclosure, in the absence of
fraud, undue advantage or pre-
jddice. Grove & Fultz vs..
Loan Co., II N. d. 1852.
3. Where the mortgage, at
a sale under a foreclosure of a
second mortgage by advertise
ment, bid the amount due up
on his mortgage. with costs of
foreclosure, and is the highest
bidder, the amount so bid can
not be held an inadequate price
under the circumstances, and
the adequacy or inadequacy of
the price is not measured by
exactly the same considerations
that would determine the ques-
ton were it at a public auction
for other purposes, as it can
not be assumed that the law
contemplates that a mortgage,
to protect his debt and security,
must advance, under such cir
cumstances, an amount per-
haps several times the debt for
the protection of the small sum
secured To hold that he must
do so would, in many cases,
impose a burden upon him
which would render his secur-
itv valueless.
4. The presence and partic-
ipation of more than one bid
der at a foreclosure sale by ad-
vertisement, when proper and
legal notice has been given
thereof, is not necessary to a
legal sale. 1t is sufficient if
the public has been fully ad-
vised of the sale by legal pub
LEGATION of notice, and has the
right and opportunity to attend
and bid.
5. Section 2.279, r. G. of
1905, prescribes the qualifica-
tons that a newspaper must
possess to entitle it to publish
legal notices, and it is not for
the court, in the absence of
fraud, to overturn the legisla-
tive judgment on the subject
and set aside a foreclosure sale
where the advertisement was
published in a newspaper quail
fled under said section, be-
cause it may not have had az
great a circulation in the vi.
cinity of the land as some other
paper published in the county.
6. The mortgagor, on fore.
| closure of a mortgage by ad'
vertisement under a power OF
sale, the advertiser ent being
published in a newspaper pub.
lished in the county in which
the land is situated, and quail.
fed under the provisions Of
section 2,279, r. c. of 1905, tc
public legal notices, is charged
with knowledge of the foreclo
sure proceedings, and the fact
that he has no actual know.
ledge thereof is not, under or
binary circumstances, evidence
of fraud or bad faith; and the
notice so published has the
same binding force that fore
closure by action has when the
defendants therein are person
ally served with process.
Grove & Fultz vs.. Loan Co., Il
N. d. 1852.
Z. Six publications in 81,
successive weeks. the last pub
LEGATION being the day before
the sale, in a foreclosure undel
power of sale contained in tn.
mortgage, fills the require
ments of section 7,495, r. G. O
1905, which requires that no
tice be given by publication si1
times, once each week for si1
successive weeks.
8. The fact that the mortgag
or paid interest on a frs
mortgage after the institution
of foreclosure proceedings un
der a second mortgage, ant
that the mortgage so foreclos
ing did not ascertain that fac
and prevent his doing so, AM
the further fact that the mort
gagor paid taxes on the prem
ises after commencement o
foreclosure proceedings, is no
a reason for vacating the sale
and particularly when it is no
shown that the mortgage ha'
knowledge of these facts, an
when, if known. he had a RICH
. to assume that the mortgagol
; who had full knowledge of tn
second mortgage, was intend
ing to pay or redeem from it.
9. In the absence of proc