The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1922-11-17

y w a Oh S0cCIOif. cliIu 1SZ2 INV Il I'll
Section 10, Township 81 North, Range
So East, all of which more fully ap-
pears in the plaintiffs complaint in
the office of the Clerk of the above
entitled Court, reference to which is
hereby. made.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of
said Court this 23rd day of October,
A. D. 1922.
Clerk of the District Court.
JOSEPH HODGSON,
Helena, Montana.
Attorney for Plaintiff. 29-t4
ALIAS SUMMONS ON CROSS
COMPLAINT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DIS
TRICT OF THE STATE OF MON
rANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY
Of SHERIDAN.
F. G. FISHBECK and w. R. JARVIS,
co-partners, doing business under
the firm name and style of Fishbeck
& Jarvis, Plaintiffs,
VS..
WILLIAM Ell. KELLUM, NAOMI
KELLUM, A. RIBA, GEORGE Nc
LEOD, L. G. =ZEIDLER, CITI-
ZEN STATE BANK OF boo
LEY, a corporation, THE HUN
TER LUMBER COMPANY, a
corporation, T. L. BEISEKER,
JOHN w. SHELBY, T. C. KELLY,
GEORGE A. WRIGHT, SHERIDAN
COUNTY, MONTANA, a municip-
al corporation. E. G. STEELE,
PETER KREBsBACK, D. W. KEEL
LY, MARY KELLY, OSWALD
SCHULTZ, ADOLPH SCHULTZ,
DAVID THOMPSON, w. M. RAD
Err RISHBECK & JARVIS REAL
TY CO., a corporation, J. W. VEL
LAND, and all other persons I'M
known, claiming Or who might
claim any right, title, estate, or in
terest in, or lien. or encumbrance
upon the real property described in
the complaint, or any thereof, adj
verse to plaintiffs ownership, or
any cloud upon plaintiffs title there
to, whether such claim or possible
claim be present, or contingent, in
Guiding any claim or possible claim
of dover, inchoate or accrued, De-
PENDANTS.
THE STATE OF MONTANA Sends
Greetings to the above named defend
ants and to each of them:
e,IIoG~ are hereby summoned to ans
Ner the cross complaint in this action
which is filed in ~of1fee of the clerk
If this Court, a copy OF which is
herewith served upon che of YOU If
each county wherein any of you re-
side and to file your answer and serve
/ copy thereof upon the cross COM
attorney within twenty days
,fter the service of this Summons on
Cross Complaint, exclusive Of the day
If service and in case Of your failure
% appear or answer, judgment will
De taken against you, by default for
he relief demanded in the cross COM
olaint.
In this cross complaint the defend
ant, Mary Kelly seeks to foreclose a
certain mortgage dated November IS,
1912, given to secure note Of same
late for the sum of $4,000, which
we're made and executed by William
I. Kellun, single man to D. W.
Kelly whereby the following lands
we're mortgaged: (SEM) of Section
49, and (NEA) of Section (30), all
# Township (37) North of Range
|56), E. NJ, NJ, which was thereafter
luly recorded in Book 80 of Mort
cages on page 173 in the Office of
Clerk and Recorder of Sheridan Coun-
y, Montana, that no part of said
tote has been paid except the sum of
$500 paid on the 9th day Of March,
-9t6; that the said note and mortgage
vas in September, 1914, for a valu-
able consideration, sold and assigned
" D. W. Kelly to T. C. Kelly, who
hereafter duly sold and assigned the
same to L. G. Zeidler on the 10th day
# May, 1916, who in turn sold and
assigned the same to T. C. Kelly, and
lie 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
aid note and mortgage and all the
lights thereunto belonging; That the
aid mortgage provided that if default
)e made in the payment of principal
md interest of said promissory note
he said mortgage might be foreclos-
"a and the premises sold in satisfac
ion Of the amount found due and
,Wing including costs and attorney
'ees; That $4,000 is a reasonable at
orneys fee according to the cross
to be allowed herein, That
he said note is long past due; That
F. G. Fishbeck and W. R. Jarvis, CO.
partners doing business as Fishbeck
6 Jarvis, claims some interest to the
premises by reason of
given them by William H.
AelIu1n and Naomi Kellum, and also
lain some interest by reason Of a
decree of foreclosure and sale Of
laid premises, but this cross complain
ant alleges that the said mortgages
are inferior to her claim herein and
hat the Sheriff's certificate and Sher-
ifs deed are void because the decree
IF foreclosure an order of sale did not
specify what amount was due them
1nder each mortgage and note, taxes
and attorney fees but that the said
lecree contained merely a lump sum-,
and that said decree made no provi-
sion where encumbraneers might re-
leenl, If subsequent in time TO one
mortgage but not as to the other and
hat said decree does not give to re-
the right to redeem from
one mortgage without redeeming from