Court Opinion

ID: 9865834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 21:42:33.461782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:25.067078
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Petition for Rehearing.
One error crept into the original opinion as to the statement of facts with reference to the mortgage. We said therein: “We do not have the mortgage before us, and a copy of it is not set out in the record. All that is said is that this mortgage was signed by both the husband and the wife.” We find on further investigation, however, that this statement is inaccurate; that the mortgage was set out in full in the record, but this error *339has no effect on the final result because the holding in the opinion (wherein we refused her the right to take her one-third free from the mortgage indebtedness) was written on the assumption that the mortgage corresponded with the notes and was a joint obligation of both the husband and the wife.
There were three appeals in this matter and two consolidated cases. The first case was an action in partition in which there was filed a cross-petition. The second ease involved the foreclosure of a mortgage. In the partition case, the defendants appeal and in that case the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal on one question, namely, whether the widow had a right to take her one-third free from the mortgage.
As to this cross-appeal, the holding of the opinion is that the decree of the court with reference thereto is reversed.
As to plaintiffs’ appeal in the foreclosure case, the holding of the opinion is that the decree of the district court is affirmed.
This record, consisting of 300 printed pages, has been very confusing by reason of the consolidation and method of argument. On plaintiffs’ appeal, the district court’s holding on the question of rent is reversed.
As to the advancement and repairs, the holding is modified and affirmed, and as to the ruling on the motion to vacate the appearance of the attorneys in the foreclosure case, the ruling of the district court is affirmed.
The petitions for rehearing are overruled.
The costs on this appeal are divided half and half between the appellants and the appellees.