TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nelson v. Caspary

Nelson v. Caspary, 195 N.W. 552 (S.D. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
South Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 18, 1923
Docket
No. File No. 5337
Judges
Gates
Citations
195 N.W. 55246 S.D. 6321923 S.D. LEXIS 104
Disposition
Reversed.
Cited by 3
Headnotes
1. Mortgages — Foreclosure—Action to Set- Aside Sale on Foreclosure by Advertisement Should Be Brought During Period for Redemption.- An action to set aside a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement should ordinarily be brought before the period of redemption expires. 2. Mortgages — Foreclosure—Sale of Three Quarter Sections Together Not Ground for Setting Aside When Constituting One Farm. Where mortgaged premises, though consisting of three contiguous quarter sections, constituted a single farm, a sale thereof upon foreclosure by advertisement in bulk will not be set aside.
Summary
Appeal from. -Circuit Court, Tripp County; Hon. N. D. Burch, Judge. Action by Carl M. Nelson against Charles Caspary and E. H. Simons, to set aside a mortgage foreclosure. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Appellant cited: Rfev. Code 1919, Sec. 2883,; Rodgers v. Caldwell, 32 N. E. 693; Larzelere v. Starkweather, 38 Mich. 96; Worley v. Naylor, 6 Minn. 192; Webster’s 'Standard Dictionary, “farm”; Anderson’s Law Dictionary; Aldrich v. Caslcill, 10 Cush. 158; Black v. Hill, 32 Ohio. St. 318; State v. Jordan', 17 So. 742-745> 35' 'Fla- Martin v. Cole, 38 Iowa 141-146; In re Drake (U. S.), 1x4 -Fed. 229-321; Goodtitle v. Paul, 2 Burrows 1089-1094; Pepper v. O.’Dowd, 39 Wis. 538; W'illard v. Finnegan, 44 N. W. 985; Clark v. -Kraker (Mich.), 53 N. W. 706; Middlesex Banking Co. v. Lestes, 7 S. D. 333,; Cronkhite v. Buchanan, 53 Pac. 863; Bechtel v. W-ier (Cal.), 93 P'ac. 75; Northwest Mortgage 'Co. v. Bradley, 70 N. W. 648; Banking Co. v. Lester (S. TX), 64 N. W. 168; Willard v. Finnegan (Minn.), 44 N. W. 985; Bunker v. Rand, 19 Wis. 253; Raymond v. Pauli, 21 Wis. 538; Hoffman v. Buschman (Mich.), 55 N. W. 458; 115 lU. S. 439, 29 ¡L. ed. 440, 443; 27 Cyc. 1480; Yale v. Stevenson, 58 Mich. 537, 25 N. W. 488; Merrill v. Nelson, 18 Minn. 3,66; -Kellogg v. Carrico, 47 Mo. 157; Henderson v. Austin, 34 Barb. 319; Maxwell v. Newton, 65. Wis. 261, 27 N. W. 31; Field v. Brokaw, 159 Ill. 5:60, 42 N. E. 877; Patton v. Smith, 113 Ill. 499; Davis v. D-res-back, 81 Ill. 383; Street v. Beal, 16 Iowa 68, 85 Am. Dec. 504; Durm v. Fish, 46 Mich. 312, 9 N. W. 429; Griswold v. Fowler, 24 Barb. 1.35; Woodhull v. Osborne, 2 Edw. 614; Fergus v. Woodworth, 44 Ill. 374; Walker v. Schumi, 41 Ill. 462; Hull v. King (M'inn.)', 37 N. W. 792. Respondent cited: Fienup v. Kleinmann, 172 N. W. 804; Words and Phrases, 2969; Morse v. Sebold, 35, N. E. 2699 Tredwell v. Clark, 77 N. Y. 'Siupp. 3,50; -Coosau Min. Co. v. Caroline Min. Co., 75 Fed. 860; First National Bank of Deadwood1 v. Black Hills Fair Assn.., 2 S. D. 145; Thompson v. Bro>wn, 10 S. D. 347. .

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gates

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

GATES, J.

This is an action to set aside a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement. Findings and judgment were for plaintiff setting aside the sale. Defendants appeal from the judgment and an order denying new trial.

[1, 2] The action was not begun until nearly two months after the sheriff’s deed was issued. Ordinarily an action like this ought to ‘be brought before the time for redemption expires. There are no facts disclosed that would excuse plaintiff’s laches in that behalf. The trial was had and judgment rendered and order denying new trial made prior to the handing down of the opinion in Hagan v. Pratt, 46 S. D. 267, 192 N. W. 370 , and the trial court in this case evidently misunderstood the effect of the decision in Fienup v. Kleinman, 42 S. D. 43, 172 N. W. 804 . In this case the mortgaged premises although consisting of three contiguous quarter sections constituted but one farm. In Hagan v. Pratt, supra, in discussing Fienup v. Kleinman, supra, we said:

“Here the mortgaged premises undeniably consist of but one *634 fam or tract. That is sufficient to sustain the foreclosure sale and the approval thereof by the trial court.”

Following that decision the judgment and order appealed from must be reversed1.

Note. — Reported in 195 -N. W. 552. See. Headnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Mortgages, Key-No. 369(5), 27 Oyc. 1509 (1924 Anno.); (2) Mortgages, Key-No. 358, 27 Cyc. 1480.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1924: 11925: 11933: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lockhart v. Ruden250 N.W. 349 (S.D. 1933)
  2. James Valley Bank v. Nicholas199 N.W. 117 (S.D. 1924)
  3. Conrad v. Carpenter205 N.W. 376 (S.D. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Lockhart v. Ruden250 N.W. 349 (S.D. 1933)
  2. Conrad v. Carpenter205 N.W. 376 (S.D. 1925)
  3. James Valley Bank v. Nicholas199 N.W. 117 (S.D. 1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Fienup v. Kleinman, 172 N.W. 804 (S.D. 1919) 5
Hagan v. Pratt, 192 N.W. 370 (S.D. 1923) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list