The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1922-10-27

were mortgaged: (sEA of Section
(19) and (NEA of Section (30), all
OF Township l37) North of Range
f56), E. M. NJ, which was thereafter
duly recorded in Book so of Mort
cages on page 173 in the Office of
Clerk and Recorder Of Sheridan Coun-
ty, Montana, that no part of said
note has been paid except the sum of
$500 paid on the 9th day of March,
1916; that the said note and mortgage
was in September, 1914, for a valu-
able consideration, sold and assigned
by T. w. Kelly to T. C. Kelly, who
thereafter duly sold and assigned the
same to L, G. Zeidler on the 10th day
of May, 1916, who in turn sold and
assigned the same to T. C. Kelly, and
he in turn, on the 10th day of April,
1922, sold and assigned the same to
Mary Kelly the cross complainant,
who is now the owner and holder of
said note and mortgage and all the
rights thereunto belonging; That the
said mortgage provided that if default
be made in the payment of principal
and interest of said promissory note
the said mortgage might be foreclos-
ed and the premises sold in satisfac-
ton of the amount found due and
owing including costs and attorney
fees; That $4,000 is a reasonable at
torneys fee according to the cross
complainant to be allowed herein, That
the said note is long past due; That
f. G. Fishbeck and w. R. Jarvis, CO.
partners doing business as Fishbeck
& Jarvis, claims some interest to the
mortgaged premises by reason of
given them by William H.
Kellum and Naomi Kellum, and also
claim some interest by reason of a
decree of foreclosure and sale of
said premises, but this cross complain
ant alleges that the said mortgages
are inferior to her claim herein and
that the Sheriff. certificate and Sher-
ifs deed are void because the decree
Of foreclosure an order of sale did not
specify what amount was due them
under each mortgage and note, taxes
and attorney fees but that the said
decree contained merely lump sum,
and that said decree made no provi-
sion where encrmbrancers might re-
deem, if subsequent in time to one
mortgage but not as to the other and
that said decree does not give to re-
the right to redeem from
one mortgage without redeeming from
both; That. the said mortgages last
mentioned here dated December 16,
1913 and October Z, 1914, respective
ly and duly recorded in Sheridan
County, Montana, and that by virtue
Of cross compliments mortgage here
and above referred to, the mortgages
Of the said Fishbeck & Jarvis are sub
sequent and inferior thereto.
That for cross compliments second
defence and cause of action under the
cross complaint she alleges that the
said Kellums on January IA, 1914
executed and delivered to T. c. Kelly
a certain note and mortgage mortgag-
ing the real estate above described for
100000 said note payable October l.,
1914, with interest at II per cent per
annum, which said mortgage was
duly recorded in Sheridan County,
Montana, on January IA, 1914, in Book
Sc of mortgages, page IT; Mortgage
provided that in case of default in
payment of either principal or inter-
est mortgage might be foreclosed,
premises sold for the amount found
due and owing, together with attor
neys fees and costs; That the cross
complainant is asking for $4,000 at
torney fees herein; that the said note
is long past due and no part has been
paid; that by virtue of certain assign
ments the cross complainant is now
the owner and holder of the said note
and Mortgage; That the said plain
tiffs, F. G. Fishbeck and W. R. JAR
Wis, co-partners, doing business under
the name and style of Fishbeck & Jar
Wis have two mortgages on said
premises as above stated executed by
he said Kellums; That the said mort
gage to them dated October Z, 1914,
IS subsequent to the lien of this cross
by virtue of her mort
gage; That this cross complainant al
Ieges that any claim of the said Fish
beck & Jarvis may have in and to said
premises by virtue of their said mort
gage dated December 16, 1913, or
under their decree of foreclosure an
order sale or Sherif's certificate Or
deed is subsequent to the claim of
his cross complainant, for the, reason
that the said decree and order and
said certificate and deed are void by
reason of the fact that said decree and
sale did not specify the amount due
them under said notes, taxes paid and
fees, but that the said de-
cree merely stated lump sum; That
the said decree does not provide that
one of said mortgages could be re-
deemed from without redeemirg from
both and that said cross compliments
predecessor in interest did not have
The right to redeem from the first of
said mortgages without redeeming
from both; That the said mortgages
we're dated as here and above men
Toned; That cross complainant asks
for the amount due hereas provided
in said notes and mortgages; That
the premises be foreclosed upoT: to
paw the amounts so due and owing
together with costs and attorneys
fees; That if frc. 4 said sale the pro-
ceeds are not suf lcient to satisfy the
first mortgage that cross complainant
have Judgment for the deficiency, but
that If sufficient to satisfy the first
and not the second that she have judg
,ooY+ for c,1ch deficiency. That all